Life is life. People will use double standards to make themselves feel better about their decisions, but that doesn’t change the ramifications or magnitude of those decisions. In this case those are the extinguishing of a human life that never even had a chance. No matter what rhetoric you state or what circular arguments you make this is what it comes back to … death. I’m not judging anyone. It’s not my place to, but I think it would be sensible for people to at least understand what it is they are really doing.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
First, I am assuming your main argument is this. Please correct me if I am mistaken:
You know what? You are right. All of these points are actually incidental to the main point of your argument. Logically unsound as they are, they are not nearly so damaging to your position as your main point. I’ll demonstrate why. Based upon the information you have provided so far in this thread, I can construct the following syllogism:
Impairing the freedom of another human is wrong.
Abortion impairs the freedom of a human.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This is not me putting words in your mouth. This is an argument using exactly what you have declared in this thread. Indeed, I actually agree with this statement, particularly as it highlights the fact that the freedom the woman must sacrifice is far, far less than the freedom the child is forced to relinquish, thereby providing a reliable standard to determine whose freedom we must prioritize in this dilemma.
What you are trying to argue for is not the primacy of freedom, as your statements upon this are contradictory. When you strip this down to its core, you are actually arguing that murder should be sanctioned in certain instances, particularly in those instances in which the victim has no say in the matter.
Make no mistake, this is exactly where your philosophy takes us.
[/quote]
Right, so my main argument is that, all else being equal mind you, going through the pregnancy and spending years raising the child to see if it would rather have died back when it didn’t care either way is a stupid thing to do when the alternative (abortion) solves the problem immediately (and painlessly, if you care).
BUT since “all else” is never equal, the decision should be solely the mothers.
Your three point synopsis does not describe me. What have I said that gives the impression of your first two points there? I don’t think I would say something like that (especially as a universal) because you can then say the following:
Impairing the freedom of another human is wrong.
restraining impairs the freedom of a human.
Therefore, restraining is wrong.
I think we can both agree that there are times when the “freedom” of a human must be impaired, so even if I was pro-life, I would not make the argument you set up above. [/quote]
The clause about one freedom interfering with another and superceding it was covered. In fact, we are still agreeing with each other, as far as I can tell.
In the case of a pregnancy, as the unborn child is yet to be able decide for itself or to defend its own life, then the “freedom” of the mother must be impaired.
You’ve already admitted that the organism is a distinct human entity. At this point you are arguing that we should be able to kill certain people when their existence becomes an inconvenience to us.
Also, your main argument contains a HUGE logical fallacy: Even if deciding to kill the child before it is born because it may have a shitty life turned out to be a mercy for some, you are necessarily killing kids that would NOT want to die ALONG WITH the ones who may. And, as suicides are between 1 and 2% of the total amount of deaths at any given time, I have my doubts as to how many of the 40+ million kids who have been killed since 1973 would have voluntarily chosen this for themselves, if they were somehow allowed the choice.
The rate of abortion, on the other hand, shot WAY the fuck up after 1973.
http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf
What a huge surprise.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Red herring.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Thats a huge red herring. The military’s purpose is not to snub out a life before it sees daylight. Abortion does just that.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]I do support murdering guilty parties and using violence to end some conflicts, I do not support murdering innocent life out of narcisstic reasoning. Totally, flat out different.
So I should believe what you say simply because you make a claim, with nothing to back your stance? Prove to me a fetus being aborted cannot feel. Simply prove me wrong. Please!
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
<<<< You ask why fetal pain matters, I say because I personally do not want a fetus to suffer, but moreover (and this is my first time saying this because I thought it was obvious before) the film you linked me strongly made the assertion that the fetus was suffering during the abortion, therefore abortion is wrong. I was showing this is not true. You have my answer. >>>> [/quote]
Simply prove me wrong on one point, if it was so simple a two year old would dismantle my stance. Wait, you want to justify killing the child before they have a chance to stand up for their own life!!
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@KneeDragger_79
… I’m just going to ignore you. There’s a lot wrong with your arguments, and you’ve made a lot of them. It would take much more typing than I’m willing to do to sort it out.
Don’t take it personally. Or do, I don’t care. [/quote]
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Thats a huge red herring. The military’s purpose is not to snub out a life before it sees daylight. Abortion does just that.
[/quote]
Well it’s certainly a red herring if you don’t understand what I’m saying.
“Murder” isn’t always “wrong”, as you’ve just justified murder in that particular scenario. Calling abortion “murder” means nothing to me and it’s not an argument against abortion.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Red herring.
[/quote]
see my response to USMCpoolee
Military doesn’t equal murder (or killing, whatever adjective you prefer). Abortion does, always.
I like this post!
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Life is life. People will use double standards to mae themselves feel better about their decisions, but that doesn’t change the ramifications or magnitude of those decisions. In this case those are the extinguishing of a human life that never even had a chance. No matter what rhetoric you state or what circular arguments you make this is what it comes back to … death. I’m not judging anyone. It’s not my place to, but I think it would be sensible for people to at least understand what it is they are really doing.[/quote]
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Life is life. People will use double standards to make themselves feel better about their decisions, but that doesn’t change the ramifications or magnitude of those decisions. In this case those are the extinguishing of a human life that never even had a chance. No matter what rhetoric you state or what circular arguments you make this is what it comes back to … death. I’m not judging anyone. It’s not my place to, but I think it would be sensible for people to at least understand what it is they are really doing.[/quote]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The clause about one freedom interfering with another and superceding it was covered. In fact, we are still agreeing with each other, as far as I can tell.
[/quote]
If you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about, then we have a misunderstanding. This is why I don’t like other people to jump in to my debates already under way. In that context I was using my opponents words against him, not necessarily making an argument I would use, at least in that many words.
Well, there’s “kill” and then there’s “let die”. Since the only way to remove a fetus is by killing it (or carefully extracting it and letting it wither away… but that’s stupid) then yes, you are in fact killing the fetus by removing it as an inconvenience. Abortion is really the only circumstance off hand that I can think of where the only way to remove something as an inconvenience is to kill it, however. You don’t have to kill a two year old if you no longer want custody, for example.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. We’re still not clear on this it seems. I’m not saying that we should have abortions to stop the child from being miserable, I’m saying letting the mother decide whether to abort the child or not is a better alternative to forcing her to go through the pregnancy and raising the child for years so it can decide whether or not it would have preferred to be aborted back when it didn’t care either way.
I would rather a woman who is not ready to be a mother give up the child. I would also rather not further burden the already over crowded orphanages.
[quote]
The rate of abortion, on the other hand, shot WAY the fuck up after 1973.
http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf
What a huge surprise. [/quote]
I don’t care about that.
You’re a Catholic, so tell me, what happens to the souls of unborn children? Do they get sent to Hell? I doubt it. Do they get a free pass to heaven? If so then abortion is no problem. Do they get passed off into another fetus? If so then abortion still isn’t a problem. You’re just moving the soul into the belly of a mother who actually wants a child. If anything, you’re doing it a favour. So what’s the problem?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Simply prove me wrong on one point, if it was so simple a two year old would dismantle my stance. Wait, you want to justify killing the child before they have a chance to stand up for their own life!!
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@kneedragger79
… I’m just going to ignore you. There’s a lot wrong with your arguments, and you’ve made a lot of them. It would take much more typing than I’m willing to do to sort it out.
Don’t take it personally. Or do, I don’t care. [/quote]
[/quote]
Sigh Fine. One point. Pick the one you feel is your strongest argument and I’ll give it a go.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Military doesn’t equal murder (or killing, whatever adjective you prefer). Abortion does, always. [/quote]
The point of a military is to either kill invaders (or enemies in general) or to kill foreigners for their land. If you think a military is for something else, I’d love to hear it.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Military doesn’t equal murder (or killing, whatever adjective you prefer). Abortion does, always. [/quote]
The point of a military is to either kill invaders (or enemies in general) or to kill foreigners for their land. If you think a military is for something else, I’d love to hear it. [/quote]
No I agree with you there, but the military doesn’t automatically kill (during natural disasters etc). Whereas abortion does. Again, killing or whatever term you prefer.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Military doesn’t equal murder (or killing, whatever adjective you prefer). Abortion does, always. [/quote]
The point of a military is to either kill invaders (or enemies in general) or to kill foreigners for their land. If you think a military is for something else, I’d love to hear it. [/quote]
No I agree with you there, but the military doesn’t automatically kill (during natural disasters etc). Whereas abortion does. Again, killing or whatever term you prefer. [/quote]
?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]I do support murdering guilty parties and using violence to end some conflicts, I do not support murdering innocent life out of narcisstic reasoning. Totally, flat out different.
[/quote]
to support the military is to support collateral damage, as it is unavoidable.
collateral damage includes the murder of innocents.
war is waged knowing that collateral damage is inevitable.
ergo, you support the murder of innocents.
the world is not as black and white as it was when you were five.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]
Do you support your military? Then you support murder, flat out. End of discussion.[/quote]I do support murdering guilty parties and using violence to end some conflicts, I do not support murdering innocent life out of narcisstic reasoning. Totally, flat out different.
[/quote]
to support the military is to support collateral damage, as it is unavoidable.
collateral damage includes the murder of innocents.
war is waged knowing that collateral damage is inevitable.
ergo, you support the murder of innocents.
the world is not as black and white as it was when you were five.[/quote]
Speaking of grey, intent vs. actual are not equal when supporting the military.
Intent to abort vs. murder of innocent life is.
Unless of course you are trying to convince yourself you are making a good decision by killing an innocent life you created, regardless of it’s stage of development be it 2 months, 3 years or 50 years.
Go back and read the original post that Tiger so eloquently edited, it’s on page 11. This point is black and white, by Tigers own logic.
Then shoot yourself for aborting an innocent life you were responsible for creating. Murder, when applied to punishing guilty parties, is acceptable. How is that for grey?