Still, your answer, please?Vonsalza:
My primary defense was that murdering babies is bad. I was arguing against a specific line of reasoning you were using, not arguing my basic claim.HopkinsReb:
Sure. It’s just that your primary defense was that women who have most abortions engage in sexual activity with the awareness that pregnancy could result.
I’m asking what you’d do about women who had “sex” and were thus impregnated against their will.
I’d recommend adoption, not murdering babies.HopkinsReb:
Still, your answer, please?Vonsalza:
My primary defense was that murdering babies is bad. I was arguing against a specific line of reasoning you were using, not arguing my basic claim.HopkinsReb:
Sure. It’s just that your primary defense was that women who have most abortions engage in sexual activity with the awareness that pregnancy could result.
I’m asking what you’d do about women who had “sex” and were thus impregnated against their will.
Sure, and my view is that no woman should be forced to have a child against her will.
To save lives. Likewise, if I saw someone in the street trying to murder someone, I’d step in. It would not bother me one whit that I was denying him the right to choose what to do with a knife arm other than my own.HopkinsReb:
Sure, and my view is that no woman should be forced to have a child against her will.
Similarly, I’m blow away that anyone would think they have any right to force their views upon any uterus other than their own.
Obviously, which begs the question as to whether they should be and what criteria ought to be used to make that determination. The rights and desires of the mother have no bearing whatever on whether a fetus is or is not an actual person.
Interesting you say that.Vonsalza:
To save lives. Likewise, if I saw someone in the street trying to murder someone, I’d step in. It would not bother me that I was denying him the right to choose what to do with a knife arm other than my own.HopkinsReb:
Sure, and my view is that no woman should be forced to have a child against her will.
Similarly, I’m blow away that anyone would think they have any right to force their views upon any uterus other than their own.
Similarly, the right of a woman to not be forced to carry a baby seems to be a pretty good one.Vonsalza:
Obviously, which begs the question as to whether they should be and what criteria ought to be used to make that determination. The rights and desires of the mother have no bearing whatever on whether a fetus is or is not an actual person.
Well, if we can just get the abortion rate to 100% we can eventually eliminate all crime.HopkinsReb:
Interesting you say that.Vonsalza:
To save lives. Likewise, if I saw someone in the street trying to murder someone, I’d step in. It would not bother me that I was denying him the right to choose what to do with a knife arm other than my own.HopkinsReb:
Sure, and my view is that no woman should be forced to have a child against her will.
Similarly, I’m blow away that anyone would think they have any right to force their views upon any uterus other than their own.
It’s theorized that the great crime collapse in New York in the early 90s didn’t happen because Rudy was such a darn good mayor.
It happened because the early 90s occurred roughly 16-19 years after Roe v. Wade. As unwanted children statistically are more prone to a misspent youth, the next great generation of criminals had been killed in-utero.
I support legalizing burglary.HopkinsReb:
I’m not pro-abortion. I’m pro choice.
Let. The. Woman. Choose.
You keep evading the question: what criteria should be used to determine whether someone (something) is or is not a human being? It cannot be that this entity is human because its mother wants it while that entity is not because its mother does not want it. What criteria determines whether a human life is a human “being”?
Apparently personhood is determined by the percentage chance you’d grow up to commit crime in New York City or something.Vonsalza:
You keep evading the question: what criteria should be used to determine whether someone (something) is or is not a human being? It cannot be that this entity is human because its mother wants it while that entity is not because its mother does not want it. What criteria determines whether a human life is a human “being”?
I’m not evading - I don’t think it can be answered in an objective way.Vonsalza:
You keep evading the question: what criteria should be used to determine whether someone (something) is or is not a human being?
At the moment that’s as valid a definition as we have.
You’re just not comfortable with the notion that some things can’t be dogmatically defined. I’m sure that is a difficult concept for someone who comes from a background of traditional western legalism.HopkinsReb:
At the moment that’s as valid a definition as we have.
Of course. But I wouldn’t lump the right to vote or hold a driver’s license in with the right to make it to one’s birthday without getting crushed to death in the abortionist’s vacuum machine.
I already addressed that in my post. You truncated my quote to leave out the following relevant follow-up.
Fear of physical endangerment is not the reason why the vast, sweeping majority of women choose abortion. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf
Then why did you refer to that argument?
Actually, the tragedy of killing someone does technically justify taking away the right to kill. I suppose your perspective will depend on how seriously you take abortion.
Of course it can be; it is just inconvenient to do so.
Even you don’t believe this. At some (arbitrary) point you are forced to recognize that the right to “liberty” does not take precedence over the right to life. Clearly you would not grant me the liberty of killing the mother even though you have granted the mother the liberty of killing her fetus. Life in general trumps liberty, and you have provided no rationale for reversing the order in this case.
Sure. That sounds awful.
Not sufficiently as the objection still stands.
Quite right. The fear of poverty is.
And similarly I suppose your perspective depends on how seriously you take the right of a woman to have control over her body.
I agree. I think the primary basis on which the GOP attracts its non-wealthy voters is largely a dog-and-pony show.
I think you’re right.
It’s very defensible. It’s about a woman’s control over her body, which should be absolute.
I understand. But your side isn’t capable of providing a definition that can’t be torn to shreds by rational concerns, or you’d have done it by now.Vonsalza:
Of course it can be; it is just inconvenient to do so.
Sure. At birth the child is no longer dependent on the sacrifice of the mother’s body in order to live.