[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would argue an embryo does have a “property” right to the womb because the embryo did not crawl up there for fun, but was put there by the mother and father. Why should a living being have less of a right its life support system then the woman who created the being that needs the life support system?
[/quote]
Well, because you cannot own somebody else.
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Another thought experiment:
Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another
person, e.g., Thomp~on’s"~by now famous violinist, through your kidneys.
You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are
functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an
operation connecting that person to your ludneys through a sort of umbilical
chord, and there you lie.
This operation was conducted without the
permission or even knowledge of either “patient.”
What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist?
First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent.
Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed
attached to you. He is not a rapist.
You were “raped,” but this was not
done by your bedmate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have
since vanished fiom the scene. What you are confronted with is the result
of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your
kidneys1" completely dependent upon you for his life.
Copied from Blocks links above.
What is this a fucking sci fi channel weekend special or something?
For any surgery consent would be required before a doctor could do anything. Consent from you or consent from your legal guardian.
A fetus doesn’t get to consent to abortion and last time I check a doctor is legally obligated to help someone in need not hurt them. Honestly abortions should b against the doctor moral code because they are sworn to help protect life not take it away.
Why not put them on mars where they only get to use one hand to perform the surgery while you?re at it.
[/quote]
Well, evil aliens have made you another persons life support system anyway.
Consider yourself raped.
Kind of.
What is the nature of your relationship with Mr Thompson?
[quote]orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
[/quote]
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…[/quote]
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.
Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
[/quote]
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I would argue an embryo does have a “property” right to the womb because the embryo did not crawl up there for fun, but was put there by the mother and father. Why should a living being have less of a right its life support system then the woman who created the being that needs the life support system?
Well, because you cannot own somebody else.
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
[/quote]
No I am arguing that a mother do the responsible thing and care for a child that she created.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
[/quote]
I don’t want to enslave her anymore than I would enslave a mother who would kill a 1 week old infant. The, “you slaver!” arguement doesn’t work well here.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
[/quote]
This system of ethics teaches people they no longer have to worry about consequences to their actions. It is the ethical system of cowards that are too scared to live with the choices they make. So they make up this BS about property right to the womb and all kinds of BS so they can look in the mirror at night.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.
Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
[/quote]
Threatening someone with jail is not coercion at gunpoint?
Then, this is not a way to wash my hands and I grow tired of your constant strawmen.
It is may of determining whether whether I have the right to force a mother to care for her child.
If I let this child die I am almost as guilty as she is, but that does not mean that anyone has the right force me to care for it.
You want the child to be taken care of?
Do it yourself.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I would argue an embryo does have a “property” right to the womb because the embryo did not crawl up there for fun, but was put there by the mother and father. Why should a living being have less of a right its life support system then the woman who created the being that needs the life support system?
Well, because you cannot own somebody else.
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
No I am arguing that a mother do the responsible thing and care for a child that she created. [/quote]
Same thing
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
I don’t want to enslave her anymore than I would enslave a mother who would kill a 1 week old infant. The, “you slaver!” arguement doesn’t work well here.
[/quote]
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.
You have no right to make her do anything.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
This system of ethics teaches people they no longer have to worry about consequences to their actions. It is the ethical system of cowards that are too scared to live with the choices they make. So they make up this BS about property right to the womb and all kinds of BS so they can look in the mirror at night. [/quote]
Strawman, read the thread again.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth. Look at a lot of other animals.
They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
Threatening someone with jail is not coercion at gunpoint?
Then, this is not a way to wash my hands and I grow tired of your constant strawmen.
It is may of determining whether whether I have the right to force a mother to care for her child.
If I let this child die I am almost as guilty as she is, but that does not mean that anyone has the right force me to care for it.
You want the child to be taken care of?
Do it yourself.
[/quote]
I shouldn’t have to do it myself I didn’t create the fucking child she did! She will pay for the child and her health care. Even if she get some money from the government I would rather it go to her then some ass hole in Washington making hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their ass in congress.
Threatening someone with jail is not holding a gun to their head. We threaten people with jail if they rape someone. Does that mean for every man in the world another man holds a gun to their head so they don’t rape anyone today?
Who hold the gun to the gun holders head? Your argument is stupid. It is the threat of repercussion that keeps people doing what is morally right. Other wise I would kill a person that cut me off in traffic or that took the last protein bar at the store.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I would argue an embryo does have a “property” right to the womb because the embryo did not crawl up there for fun, but was put there by the mother and father. Why should a living being have less of a right its life support system then the woman who created the being that needs the life support system?
Well, because you cannot own somebody else.
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
No I am arguing that a mother do the responsible thing and care for a child that she created.
Same thing
[/quote]
Maybe in your tiny head
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
This system of ethics teaches people they no longer have to worry about consequences to their actions. It is the ethical system of cowards that are too scared to live with the choices they make. So they make up this BS about property right to the womb and all kinds of BS so they can look in the mirror at night.
Strawman, read the thread again.
[/quote]
Strawman that is the dumbest term I have ever read in my life. Come out and live in the real world for a little while and see if your “logic” actually works. It does not and it never will.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.
Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
Threatening someone with jail is not coercion at gunpoint?
Then, this is not a way to wash my hands and I grow tired of your constant strawmen.
It is may of determining whether whether I have the right to force a mother to care for her child.
If I let this child die I am almost as guilty as she is, but that does not mean that anyone has the right force me to care for it.
You want the child to be taken care of?
Do it yourself.
I shouldn’t have to do it myself I didn’t create the fucking child she did! She will pay for the child and her health care. Even if she get some money from the government I would rather it go to her then some ass hole in Washington making hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their ass in congress.
Threatening someone with jail is not holding a gun to their head. We threaten people with jail if they rape someone. Does that mean for every man in the world another man holds a gun to their head so they don’t rape anyone today? Who hold the gun to the gun holders head? Your argument is stupid.
It is the threat of repercussion that keeps people doing what is morally right. Other wise I would kill a person that cut me off in traffic or that took the last protein bar at the store.
[/quote]
So now you would hold a gun to someone else’s head so she has the money to raise the child, which she must because you hold a gun to her head.
Seems to me you are willing to threaten quite a few people before you step up and care for the child.
Plus, rape is a rights violation, not taking care of another person is not. I thought we had at least agreed on that distinctions.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You are basically arguing to enslave the mother to her embryo.
Now that’s a system of ethics I want no part of. The embryo has enslaved the mother…
No, you and him want to enslave the mother.
What you do not get is that this system of ethics will probably end the abortion debate in the long run.
This system of ethics teaches people they no longer have to worry about consequences to their actions. It is the ethical system of cowards that are too scared to live with the choices they make. So they make up this BS about property right to the womb and all kinds of BS so they can look in the mirror at night.
Strawman, read the thread again.
Strawman that is the dumbest term I have ever read in my life. Come out and live in the real world for a little while and see if your “logic” actually works. It does not and it never will. [/quote]
Still a strawman.
[quote]orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.
You have no right to make her do anything.
[/quote]
Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?
Mothers who starve infants to death. Citizens who let injured people die on their lawns, while telling would be rescuers they can’t enter their property. Really?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.
You have no right to make her do anything.
Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system? [/quote]
This has been addressed ad nauseum and he dodges it every time. I’m sure he’ll say it has been “addressed above.”
Orion, I know this is not “your” ethical system (which is an easy way for you not to own your arguments or truly stand behind what you are saying), but I fail to see how it will “end” the abortion debate as we know it, granted what Sloth says here is its logical conclusion.