Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Mr. Friscus]

How is me denying my private property to someone impeding their rights? Lol thats leftist crap. People are not entitled to others property.

Who is taking what property?

If the baby is inside the woman, I dont consider it an individual.

Hitler didn’t consider Jews people either

It’s literally connected to the womans body.

Yet it’s not a part of her body, it’s a seperate being with its own DNA.

If it lost its connection to the mother, it would die very fast.

Post birth a newborn infant would die very fast if it isn’t cared for a fed as well. That’s a bad standard to decide if someone is allowed to live

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Ah so a woman doesn't have a right to her own body?

Of course she does. She just doesn’t have the right to decide it’s okay to kill another male/female individual in the name of her convenience.

As for your assertion. Are you sure about that? What if letting that human life live risks your on life? Are you allowed to kill that person?

Severe medical emergencies are an exception, obviously. If you have to sprint to an exception like this, you’re not doing very well in the debate.

What when letting that person live ensures your own body is changed forever. What when letting it live ensures you being uncomfortable.

Your body changes and comfort are lower on the totem pole than another persons life, obviously

In short what about pregnancy suspends basic human rights for yourself?

Pathetic attempt at a shifting the goal
Posts fallacy..

 

[forkup]

Of course she does. She just doesn’t have the right to decide it’s okay to kill another male/female individual in the name of her convenience.

So, she doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy when pregnant. If you need to claw out an exception for pregnancy. An since we are naming fallacies, this one is called special pleading.

The logic also doesn't hold up.

Same woman, same baby. Only this time the baby is born and needs a kidney or bone marrow or even blood. Unless I'm mistaken you wouldn't be in favor in removing those by force for the matter off convience or any other reason.

Severe medical emergencies are an exception, obviously. If you have to sprint to an exception like this, you’re not doing very well in the debate.

What percentage of risk is acceptable to compel a person to risk their life for another person.

It's not the exceptional nature of severe medical outcomes that triggers the right to self-defense it's risk existing at all.

Your body changes and comfort are lower on the totem pole than another persons life, obviously

So, by that logic you can require a person to accept negative health outcomes on behalf off another person as long as the negative effects are less for you as the person you are compelled to suffer for?

Pathetic attempt at a shifting the goal
Posts fallacy..

I didn't shift anything. Trying to discuss abortion purely on the framework of what a person or a human is, is pointless unless you discuss what criteria you use for one person to deny another person "basic human rights."

The thing you asserted and I responded to.

The problem you have, is that you want to limit the discussion to what you perceive as the "basic human rights" of the fetus. While I want to discuss how those rights compete with those same rights of the mother.

You introducing a framework for the discussion "basic human rights", but only wanting to discuss the rights of one party is not a good argument.

Neither is calling me using your own framework but now for both parties a fallacy.

So the question is can you have that discussion without the use of fallacious arguments?

 

[TNHarley]

Who is taking what property?

If I dont want someone to take my property, such as selling them a cake, or a burger and fries, isnt impeding on their rights.

Hitler didn’t consider Jews people either

You mean people out of the womb?

Yet it’s not a part of her body, it’s a seperate being with its own DNA.

I know but it is literally connected to her. If something happened, it would die extremely fast. Its a part of her body.

Post birth a newborn infant would die very fast if it isn’t cared for a fed as well. That’s a bad standard to decide if someone is allowed to live

Feeding a baby and wiping its ass, isnt anywhere near what it is being compared to.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So, she doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy if you need to claw out an exception for pregnancy. A since e are naming fallacies this one is called special pleading.

How is that special pleading? Explain.

The logic also doesn't hold up.

Same woman, same baby. Only this time the baby is born and needs a kidney or bone marrow or even blood. Unless I'm mistaken you wouldn't be in favor in removing those by force for the matter off convience or any other reason.

Well you’re describing 2 completely different scenarios. The baby outside the womb can get kidney, bone marrow, or blood from other resources, while the fetus in the womb only has the mother to rely on. Meanwhile, if a doctor left an infant to die and didn’t attempt to save it, they would be criminally negligent.

What percentage of risk is acceptable to compel a person to risk their life for another person.

If it’s not life-threatening, it’s an expected “risk”. You risk your life every time you drive. Women risk pregnancy any time they have sex. It’s a biological truth. You can think it’s unfair, but the fact remains.

It's not the exceptional nature of severe medical outcomes that triggers the right to self-defense it's risk existing at all.

So, by that logic you can require a person to accept negative health outcomes on behalf off another person as long as the negative effects are less for you as the person you are compelled to suffer for?

In a mother/child scenario absolutely. There’s a reason we have CPS services

I didn't shift anything.

Sure you did. You asked how it affects me personally, as if it’s some sort of point against me. How it affects me personally is irrelevant.

Trying to discuss abortion purely on the framework of what a person or a human is, is pointless unless you discuss wat criteria you use for one person to deny another person "basic human rights."

The thing you asserted and I responded to.

The problem you have is that you want to limit the discussion to what you perceive the "basic human rights" of the fetus. While I want to discuss how those rights compete with those of the mother.

I absolutely agree. I care about the biological and philosophical definition and freedoms of the baby, which is a benevolent partaking. You only care about its effect on the mother, which is a more selfish motivation and encourages dehumanization of human life in the name of easier outcomes.. aka you’re tempting women to take the easy way out at the expense of another human’s life.

So the question is can you have that discussion without the use of fallacious arguments?

You haven’t proved I’ve made any

 

[luiza]

Learn when the Soul enters the physical body before you start to dogmatise .
Sometimes a few weeks after birth -- though that is a narrative for a different Topic .

So many let religion manipulate their beliefs instead of first finding out how Universe actually works .

 

[forkup]

How is that special pleading? Explain.

Special Pleading​

Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

In this case you asserted that woman have the right to bodily autonomy except when it comes down too "killing" another individual out of "convience" . It's special pleading because it doesn't really explain why it's killing or abortion something people only do out of "convience." It's also a prime example of begging the question. Since you're trying to smuggle your conclusions into your assertions.

Well you’re describing 2 completely different scenarios. The baby outside the womb can get kidney, bone marrow, or blood from other resources

This is again special pleading. The fact that it (might) be able to get those recources from another source, something that is not always the case for a kidney or bone marrow. Doesn't answer the question that I pose, that you can't COMPEL a person to donate. Not a mother, not anyone. No matter the consequences for the baby.

So why are you carving out an exception for a mother carrying a fetus? An exception you wouldn't force on that same mother or any other "source" after birth.

it’s not life-threatening, it’s an expected “risk”.

Yes an expected risk that you are asserting the mother has no right to mitigate.

So I'll ask again. What is the expected risk you can FORCE a person to take on behalf of someone else?

You risk your life every time you drive.

This is true. And if you feel that risk is unacceptable, you can choose not to drive. An option you are asserting a mother doesn't have.

In a mother/child scenario absolutely. There’s a reason we have CPS services

CPS services don't mitigate negative health outcomes only economical ones.

I absolutely agree. I care about the biological and philosophical definition and freedoms of the baby, which is a benevolent partaking. You only care about its effect on the mother, which is a more selfish motivation.

I care about both. And claim they have equal rights. You are the one trying to state one party has more rights. But only for the time they are in the womb.

 

[PeterPilot]

As far as the 9th amendment, Abortion isn’t historically addressed, so you can’t just assume a right out of it, and it wasn’t rooted in the nations history or culture.

The 9th amendment can be easily abused and can be used to justify just about anything you want. The original Roe v Wade case is seen as the most radical ruling in SCOTUS history for a reason. Nearly nobody asked for it.

Gawd, that post makes you sound like an AI bot.

If you're human, here it is: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Would you comment in a meaningful way?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Gawd, that post makes you sound like an AI bot.

Um, okay? Did you need some emotional tantruming involved or something?

If you're human, here it is: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know what it says, but what does that mean? How has it been applied? What is the precedent?

That’s how laws work

 

[JoeB131]

Then why did they do the thing that causes pregnancy if they never wanted a baby? There’s always a “risk”.

Well, you know, because it's fun...

It's like George Carlin used to say, "Ever notice the people who are against abortion are the ones you wouldn't want to ****!"

It was largely banned in pretty much all states unless of medical emergency, rape, or incest until the late 1960’s and then Roe. It was not a strong social movement whatsoever.. which is why the Roe v Wade case is the poster child for SCOTUS political activism, and the most radical and controversial ruling in SCOTUS history.

And this is where you are confused. I don't know if you are too young to remember or if you are just naive.

The reality of it was that Abortion Laws in the 1960s were about as effective as the prostitution laws. So prostitution is illegal, but you still have escort services, massage parlors, strip joints, etc. where you can have sex for money. Same with abortion laws back then. OB/GYNs routinely performed early-stage abortions, wrote something else down on the chart, and insurance paid for it.

Of course, people wanted the laws changed because they knew they were stupid and ineffective, but they just couldn't get past the moral scolds. So the Court stepped in.

So who got arrested? Inept providers who injured the woman. Just like the only people arrested for prostitution are the stoned out crack addicts who wander into a school zone.

Exactly. California cares more about unborn sea turtles than unborn humans. It’s a shocking truth, and kinda puts things in perspective

I'm sure if a woman found a bunch of unwanted Sea Turtle Eggs up her hoo-ha, she'd want to get rid of those, too.

Human beings aren't in danger of extinction. Sea Turtles are.

 

[Stann]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

Andweall.know a woman and her doctor are the only ones who should be deciding on wether or not to bring new life into this world. And they shouldn't have to explain that to anyone.

 

[PeterPilot]

Um, okay? Did you need some emotional tantruming involved or something?

I know what it says, but what does that mean? How has it been applied? What is the precedent?

That’s how laws work

No, I was hoping for some rational public discourse, adult style. I was hoping you would respond with YOUR interpretation and meaning of the one-sentence amendment, but no joy. I rather expected that.

The Ninth has been cited in only one SCOTUS case as far as I know, Griswold v. Connecticut. The court upheld a couple's unenumerated right to practice birth control, in violation of a Connecticut statute.

 

[Sparker]

"Any unwanted child can be adopted" falls on its face when we consider the hundreds of thousands of children dumped in foster care. Many are neglected and abused until they age out at 18 and become homeless, incarcerated, addicted, etc. Foster child education ranges from adequate to none at all.

Carrying a fetus full term to birth is a physical and financial commitment that many women can't make. If they can't take time off work, the pregnancies may end in miscarriage, necessary and sadly late term abortion, unemployment, homelessness, and/or death. Raise your hand if you personally want to pay higher taxes so all pregnant women can have guaranteed maternity leave. Pregnancy is also a medical risk. Many injuries and illnesses can happen with permanent damage that reduces quality of life and lifespan. If an abortion is recognized as necessary to save the woman's life, there is probably damage that won't heal, if she's in a state that allows abortion and she has the money.

 

[Sparker]

Name another species of animal that aborts their unborn young because they "can't afford" babies or because of the "inconvenience" of having one.

There are some species that sometimes eat their born young: cats, rabbits, etc., and more that eat the young of territorial rivals.

 

[SaxonJackson]

There are some species that sometimes eat their born young: cats, rabbits, etc., and more that eat the young of territorial rivals.

If that were entirely true ... there would be no cats, rabbits, etc. Truth be told ... there's an abundance of cats, rabbits, etc. because eating their young is NOT the norm.

 

[Sparker]

There's one more point I forgot, but should be obvious: many people are too dumb to be parents.

 

[Sparker]

If that were entirely true ... there would be no cats, rabbits, etc. Truth be told ... there's an abundance of cats, rabbits, etc. because that many women decide they can't afford babies.

These reasons match fairly well with women deciding they can't afford babies. Deciding to end a pregnancy will suck less than watching a baby starve to death.

 

[SaxonJackson]

These reasons match fairly well with women deciding they can't afford babies. Deciding to end a pregnancy will suck less than watching a baby starve to death.

I'm sure that cats and rabbits don't "eat" their young because they "can't afford them." The "eat" them because there's something wrong with them.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

There's one more point I forgot, but should be obvious: many people are too dumb to be parents.

Who decides who is smart or dumb enough to be parents? What metrics? How is it enforced?

 

[Sparker]

Who decides who is smart or dumb enough to be parents? What metrics? How is it enforced?

We currently let local government handle that, Children's Protective Services, with bureaucratic standards of parenting competence. Before we had so much bureaucracy, parents had help of their communities and extended families. That is what we will need again as the bureaucracy is defunded.