Arguing About Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanitasVanitatum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
With respect, I’m not going to make your argument for you. If there’s a point you wish to raise, raise it. I’m not going to click a link so as to raise it for you
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you to raise anything. I gave you a link to someone refuting your points for your learning and/or viewing pleasure, not to debate me. If you’re interested in finding the logic/truth, it makes sense to see what has been said about your current viewpoint. If you’re not interested in ever changing your mind in light of new information or you’re just not into watching videos, then don’t. Simple.

I don’t really care about debating on this thread, if I’m being honest. If I did, I would have typed it. Just interested in sharing a link that has addressed your points in case you’re genuinely interested in how it has been refuted.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
And things external to her body that require her body can be refused.
Click to expand...
so now a fetus within a woman’s body is external to her body

again, you’re all over the place. your definition now means she can only kill the baby after its born (“external to her body”). so now you’re anti-abortion but pro-infanticide
 
Last edited:
I understand. But you’re still creating “leg work” for me in order to raise your objection. Not fair.

Besides, I’ve been at this long enough that I really, truly doubt it’s an argument I’ve not seen.

But if you want to raise it, by all means…
 
Hume said:
Function is not purpose, purpose is not function. They are not synonyms.

Function is how, purpose is why. ’
Click to expand...
Ok, so you admit that reproduction is the only physiological purpose(function) of intercourse, which has been my claim all along.

List the multiple purposes you claimed exist for intercourse.
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
Hume:
And things external to her body that require her body can be refused.
Click to expand...
so now a fetus within a woman’s body is external to her body

again, you’re all over the place. your definition now means she can only kill the baby after its born. so now you’re anti-abortion but pro-infanticide
Click to expand...
A baby born is both external to her body and physically separate. If she doesn’t want to care for it, someone else can. Her right to abort as a question of bodily autonomy has ended.

It looks like you’re grasping at straws here. Last word is yours. I’ll reply if it’s something of substance.

Thanks.
 
Stephen168 said:
40.png
Hume:
Function is not purpose, purpose is not function. They are not synonyms.

Function is how, purpose is why. ’
Click to expand...
Ok, so you admit that reproduction is the only physiological purpose(function) of intercourse, which has been my claim all along.
Click to expand...
No because there’s no such thing as “physiological purpose”. Your request is falsely premised due to a category error. I can’t reply.
 
Hume said:
But you’re still creating “leg work” for me in order to raise your objection. Not fair.
Click to expand...
How so? I wasn’t expecting a response from you, it was just to share a link and leave. Since I’ve talked about it on other threads and debating morality half heartedly was never really on my list of things to do at 2.25am 🙂
Hume said:
Besides, I’ve been at this long enough that I really, truly doubt it’s an argument I’ve not seen.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. I personally didn’t see this point ever being raised up before so I was always curious to hear a pro choice rebuttal.

For context, she talks about the purpose and function of the uterus and how it’s for the fetus, unlike other organs like a liver or a kidney, and the natural responsibilities of parents. She was basically describing her debate with a pro choice professor that was stumped at her response, if I could recall accurately. I’m here to read, really. Maybe someone would do the leg work and bring the argument up for both of us, lol
 
Hume said:
A baby born is both external to her body and physically separate
Click to expand...
wow now you have a third definition 🤣

(1) first definition : bodily autonomy means you can act against a threat external to body
(2) second definition: bodily autonomy means you can act against a threat other than the body
(3) third definition: bodily autonomy means you can act against a threat external and separate from body
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Not at all. It has multiple purposes and you’ve biologically evolved to need all of them.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
List the multiple purposes you claimed exist for intercourse.
Click to expand...
Hume said:
No because there’s no such thing as “physiological purpose”. Your request is falsely premised due to a category error. I can’t reply.
Click to expand...
You claim there are multiple purposes for intercourse and suggested they are biological. Prove it.
 
Aquinas11 said:
(3) third definition: bodily autonomy means you can act against a threat external and separate from body
Click to expand...
I said her right to abort ends after birth because it’s no longer an issue of bodily autonomy. . . .
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
her right to abort ends after birth
Click to expand...
cause you’re arguing its not “external” after birth, its “external and physically separate” , completely incoherent

plus a baby nursing on a mother is not “external and physically separate” thus you do condone abortion post birth
 
Aquinas11 said:
cause you’re arguing its not “external” after birth, its “external and physically separate” , completely incoherent
Click to expand...
No, simply and clearly identifying that it’s beyond the domain of her bodily autonomy.
plus a baby nursing on a mother is not “external and physically separate” thus you do condone abortion post birth
Click to expand...
That’s a function anyone else can do. The guy walking down the street on the other side of the world can shake up a bottle.
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
Hume:
That’s a function anyone else can do
Click to expand...
so anyone else can be killed in addition to the nursing baby, since they both can do that? ok
Click to expand...
No, the woman’s ability to abort has ended because it’s no longer dependent on her body. It’s no longer dependent on anyone’s body.

It’s at this point it has rights as an individual separate from it’s mother.
 
Hume said:
no longer dependent on her body
Click to expand...
So now bodily autonomy can be exercised against threats:
(1) external to her body
(2) other than her body
(3) external and not physically separate from her body
(4) dependent on her body

four different criteria for the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top