Against abortion and against person-hood?

[alwight]

That's not what tradition states.

Let's just agree that the Romans were traditionally rather good at subjugating the locals.

I said from the get go that it was the Jews who wanted him dead, and have the greater sin. It was the central point- how you got that confused is beyond me.

Yes sorry I did seem to confuse myself a bit between posts back there, must try to maintain my attention better. :think:
I don't know about anyone's "sin" but it was all too obvious that it wasn't Pilate's wishes, he made a point of demonstrating it, so there's no real way to scapegoat the Romans was my point.

And now, women do that to men every day, and if a man brings it up, he's mocked. It's called 'insanity', and that's what you all are walking masses of.
In the event of pregnancy, it is a prospect to women and a terror to men who, without the leeway and support system a woman has, must struggle and hope that she doesn't bury her heel into her neck.

You seem to have a problem with other people's sex lives and that most can successfully plan against any unwanted outcomes? Of course your biggest problem seems to be when women presume to choose for themselves how to prevent unwanted outcomes.

Yeah, the 'good ol days', when people such as yourself were called crooks.

Really? I'm pretty old but never came across that one. Do you mean disbelievers or liberals in all your wild generalising and sexist ravings?

The Bible puts a lot of emphasis on the sin of Eve and a societal need of patriarchy for obvious good reason- a reason that you can't see because you are incapable of realizing how warped feminized society is.

Yes, that must be it.

If a would-be father forces an abortion on his sexual partner, you would see this as some screwed up crime, even though it is very much his child as well.
That's because when it boils down to it, you've been trained to simply give women supremacy in any conflict of interest.

If the father had to gestate the foetus then I might have some sympathy here, but as it is I don't. :nono:

 

[glassjester]

They're extreme cases whereas the underlying principle remains consistent. You're simply exploiting the circumstantial differences for rhetorical/dramatic purpose. But this doesn't need be.. the simple (otherwise innocuous) act of snipping another's lock of hair may not be allowed sans consent under the identical principle which entails encroachment upon another's body..no matter how boring or sensational the physical circumstance may be.

You've got it all figured out.

Now you just have to explain how the unborn child encroached upon his mother's body.
Because to my average mind, it seems the unborn child didn't actually do anything to get where he is.
He was forced into the situation.


I can justly and legally fend off an attacker, sure.

What I can't do, though, is sneak up on a baby, knock him unconscious, have my friend throw the baby's unconscious body at me, and then kill the unconscious baby, claiming that he "encroached upon my body."

 

[quip]

You've got it all figured out.

Thanks.

Now you just have to explain how the unborn child encroached upon his mother's body.
Because to my average mind, it seems the unborn child didn't actually do anything to get where he is.
He was forced into the situation.

Basic ontology. It simply "is"...extant with a necessary relation to its mother's body.

I can justly and legally fend off an attacker, sure.

What I can't do, though, is sneak up on a baby, knock him unconscious, have my friend throw the baby's unconscious body at me, and then kill the unconscious baby, claiming that he "encroached upon my body."

No one is claiming otherwise.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, I do remember stating that the unborn have no more an inherent right to a woman's body than a rapists may. Not quite sure of any direct comparison

I don't remember the "direct" part in my bit either, so we're on the same smudged page.

I'd say it's rather direct evidence for the sexual impulse.

That too. But to the other point, among the important distinctions between a rapist and the unborn (and that's something I never thought I'd have to write) is the fact that the child is the foreseeable consequence of a consensual act on the part of the mother.

Of course. It was simply an allusion by way of contrast. Now, if you have a reasonable method for removing incipient life from the womb sans its subsequent demise....I'm all ears.

I don't have to (see: the as yet standing argument). Sounds like you're repackaging Roe, the point where most on the "Her body/her choice" suddenly become indistinguishable from the "It's a life, not a choice" chorus.

Not necessarily the case. I've every right to refuse you my blood...at the cost of your life.

My examples/point required an affirmative act, not the denial of an act I am not entitled to by any operation of law. Different animal.

 

[Town Heretic]

Birth control and abortion are both specifically and uniquely of women.

Well, no. Maybe you just don't know much about birth control. :idunno: You should Google it. There are a fairly wide range of options and many of them are open to men. Abortions? Depends on the gender of the people performing the procedure.

They fought for it, they celebrate it- keep it at it's origin: abortionists exist because women who want abortions exist.

Many fought for it (with the support and aid of many men), though the Court that gave us Roe...how many women were on that, do you know?

There's a bottom, and there's a bottom bottom.

You already tried that with the scriptural bit I answered in your last. There's just death and sin and responsibility, your curious need to focus on a single part of the equation notwithstanding.

 

[quip]

I don't remember the "direct" part in my bit either, so we're on the same smudged page.

I suppose if jester didn't employ histrionics in lieu of supportive argument both your points could warrant higher merit.

That too. But to the other point, among the important distinctions between a rapist and the unborn (and that's something I never thought I'd have to write) is the fact that the child is the foreseeable consequence of a consensual act on the part of the mother.

Likewise a venereal disease...moral reprove simply fails to disqualify her from alleviating either "foreseeable" condition.

I don't have to ..

Facts are, you can't..nor is it a feasible option.

Another fact: The principle at play...still remains.

My examples/point required an affirmative act, not the denial of an act I am not entitled to by any operation of law. Different animal.

I reiterate, the basic principle applies. Arguing beyond point, to the morality of the act itself, simply lands you upon subjective grounds. You can't place cart prior to horse...no matter how persistent the dialogue.

 

[Lon]

I reiterate, the basic principle applies. Arguing beyond point, to the morality of the act itself, simply lands you upon subjective grounds. You can't place cart prior to horse...no matter how persistent the dialogue.

Exactly why I cut to the chase with you. Any verbal gymnastics is lost on your Less Than Human, animal sentiments and no less than evil values. Read the book. You are that monster.
View attachment 24035 12 weeks, Dracula.

 

[quip]

Exactly why I cut to the chase with you. Any verbal gymnastics is lost on your Less Than Human, animal sentiments and no less than evil values. Read the book. You are that monster.
View attachment 24035 12 weeks, Dracula.

How about a picture of birthed though starving children? No less heart-tugging, perhaps moreso being that the starving children are fully aware of their suffering.

The world is a harsh place while your select heart-rendering pic still fails to preclude a woman from being a "monster" if she so chooses.

 

[Lon]

How about a picture of birthed though starving children? No less heart-tugging, perhaps moreso being that the starving children are fully aware of their suffering.

The world is a harsh place while your select heart-rendering pic still fails to preclude a woman from being a "monster" if she so chooses.

:vomit: I am equally against the atrocity of both. You? You simply jumped from one inhuman punchline to the next. You hate both, not me. Remember me saying a couple of those kids (in BOTH) pictures are alive today because I did something about it? Remember you being the monster that not only didn't do a thing, but set your money, sentiments, and time against actually trying to save lives?
....Monster. Quip, you are less human than either of these portrayals.

 

[quip]

:vomit: I am equally against the atrocity of both. You? You simply jumped from one inhuman punchline to the next. You hate both, not me. Remember me saying a couple of those kids (in BOTH) pictures are alive today because I did something about it? Remember you being the monster that not only didn't do a thing, but set your money, sentiments, and time against actually trying to save lives?
....Monster.

I have no idea what you're talking about....except where it seems you're not setting a good case for TH and jester.

Quip, you are less human than either of these portrayals.

If you say so Lon, though I do have human DNA. That should account for something...yes?

 

[Lon]

I have no idea what you're talking about....except where it seems you're not setting a good case for TH and jester.

As a reminder, I've sacrificed my $ to ensure African kids lived, some very much like the picture you gave. I actually saw a picture like yours, years ago and responded by support. I've given toward adoptions against abortion as well.

If you say so Lon, though I do have human DNA. That should account for something...yes?

Frankenstein proverbially had DNA. Hitler had DNA. Was Hitler 'more human' than a zygote? :nono: Less, by far. The value you place on the most vulnerable of society, or those you 'make' the most vulnerable, are and EXACT reflection on your own humanity. It is also a reflection upon me if I support the death penalty for monsters, but believe me, it is regrettably. It is sad we/I have to choose.
Your every indication is that you relish it. It'd take a HARD turn around for me to ever see you as anything but a perverse monster, Quip.

 

[quip]

As a reminder, I've sacrificed my $ to ensure African kids lived, some very much like the picture you gave. I actually saw a picture like yours, years ago and responded by support. I've given toward adoptions against abortion as well.

That's commendable. Why you assume I believe otherwise is...confusing, at best.

Frankenstein proverbially had DNA. Hitler had DNA. Was Hitler 'more human' than a zygote? :nono: Less, by far. The value you place on the most vulnerable of society, or those you 'make' the most vulnerable, are and EXACT reflection on your own humanity. It is also a reflection upon me if I support the death penalty for monsters, but believe me, it is regrettably. It is sad we/I have to choose.
Your every indication is that you relish it. It'd take a HARD turn around for me to ever see you as anything but a perverse monster, Quip.

Sorry you feel that way Lon. Obviously you've not taken the equal time in thoroughly examining my position on abortion...you're simply seeing what you want to see and lashing out accordingly.

I'll leave you with this poem:

THE laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I , and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.
A.E. Housman

 

[Lon]

That's commendable. Why you assume I believe otherwise is...confusing, at best.

Because you are for choice over life. Inconvenience over rights. If you have changed from that position or mislead others regarding yourself, I think it'd be best to distance a lot further than you ever have on TOL.

Sorry you feel that way Lon. Obviously you've not taken the equal time in thoroughly examining my position on abortion...you're simply seeing what you want to see and lashing out accordingly.

It isn't at all what I want to see. It comes from even here, and in prior discussions with you. You are pro-abortion in your conveyances on TOL. I can re-dig up previous quotes.

I'll leave you with this poem:

THE laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;

Sorry, he doesn't have that luxury. In fact, he recognizes it later. As long as he'd stuck his face in other's business, like this poem, and influencing laws, that the rest of us despise, he was stuck and he can boo hoo all he likes. This is a 'whining' poem.

And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs

.

No. Sorry Houseman. You don't get to poke your nose and then demand I not poke mine.

Their deeds I judge and much condemn

Yep, there is the ironic self-centered rub!

Yet when did I make laws for them

?

He was a homosexual when it was both immoral and against the law. Of course he'd cry.
Now, immoral, but not against the law.

Please yourselves, say I , and they
Need only look the other way

.

Well, He shoved Jackson too hard with his infatuation. Hard to look the other way, that.

But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will

A genuine concern is like that, and as he's already done his fair share, he's a hypocrite besides.

And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made

.

Seeing that he never spent time in prison? Was given awards and a professorship? Yeah, not buying it.
Again, this is a whining poem with little foundation.

They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong

.

Ah, calling God foolish lain: And you like this poem enough to sig it? :yawn:

And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

A.E. Housman

 

[Town Heretic]

I wrote, "...among the important distinctions between a rapist and the unborn (and that's something I never thought I'd have to write) is the fact that the child is the foreseeable consequence of a consensual act on the part of the mother.

Likewise a venereal disease...moral reprove simply fails to disqualify her from alleviating either "foreseeable" condition.

I'm still not arguing moral proofs and no one is going to stop the woman from seeking medical treatment for a disease. Now the point of my application was to note the rather strong difference and distance between an illegal imposition of will on the part of the rapist, in abrogation of right, and willfully taking on the chance to abrogate that autonomy oneself, given the argument from right. So the only real point in common between the two conditions is the desire on the part of the woman that they end.

Facts are, you can't..nor is it a feasible option.

And, again, it's not a point that ever should have arrived given the argument.

I reiterate, the basic principle applies. Arguing beyond point, to the morality of the act itself, simply lands you upon subjective grounds.

Well, the argument may serve a moral end, as all good law and reason will, but it wasn't fashioned as and isn't within the context of its reason a moral instrument. Else, I think I was simply answering you on a point of contention. If that abuts or moves into a moral consideration I won't eschew the consideration, only note (as I do here) that the argument in no part rests upon that point.

You can't place cart prior to horse.

Yet that's precisely what Roe did and every other attempt manages. "Don't look at the foundation, whether or not a power to do a thing or an obligation to refrain exists, rather, follow us to this new point founded without regard for the consideration and the establishment of a right that cannot exist else." Within Roe we have a tragic usurpation. The Court reduces right to a thing created by fiat and not recognized and protected by reason.

 

[quip]

Now the point of my application was to note the rather strong difference and distance between an illegal imposition of will on the part of the rapist, in abrogation of right, and willfully taking on the chance to abrogate that autonomy oneself, given the argument from right.

In other words, unlike the rape, she brought her pregnancy upon herself. (Some here on the forum might disagree) Yet, this distinction fails to demonstrate exactly how the unborn may violate the rightful principle which disallows one human individual continual access to another's person sans explicit assent.

So the only real point in common between the two conditions is the desire on the part of the woman that they end.

As a matter of right, there need not be any other. Your explication regarding the pair serves little, save obfuscation.

And, again, it's not a point that ever should have arrived given the argument.

:doh: The mortality status of the unborn is not a salient point...in an abortion debate?! You really are off course aren't you....is this merely academic to you?

Well, the argument may serve a moral end, as all good law and reason will, but it wasn't fashioned as and isn't within the context of its reason a moral instrument.

Though, for it's application (those very ends met by argument's means) morality is an utter necessity. You simply cannot parse the two for argument sake.

Yet that's precisely what Roe did and every other attempt manages. "Don't look at the foundation, whether or not a power to do a thing or an obligation to refrain exists, rather, follow us to this new point founded without regard for the consideration and the establishment of a right that cannot exist else." Within Roe we have a tragic usurpation. The Court reduces right to a thing created by fiat and not recognized and protected by reason.

Or else, the power and voice of women had finally risen to a commensurate level of discourse upon the issue. Much to the chagrin of certain individuals who's interests require keeping this genie conveniently imprisoned within its bottle.

 

[glassjester]

What I can't do, though, is sneak up on a baby, knock him unconscious, have my friend throw the baby's unconscious body at me, and then kill the unconscious baby, claiming that he "encroached upon my body."

No one is claiming otherwise.

Yet, is the baby's body encroaching upon my body?

 

[quip]

Yet, is the baby's body encroaching upon my body?

Not if you have to "sneak up" on it and knock it unconscious. :chuckle:

Yur a hoot jester!

 

[Lon]

Not if you have to "sneak up" on it and knock it unconscious. :chuckle:

Yur a hoot jester!

There you go, reverting to type again. Of course I get you, Quip. You don't like the monster-mirror, but you just can't seem to help yourself for posing for the snapshot reflected in it.

 

[quip]

There you go, reverting to type again. Of course I get you, Quip. You don't like the monster-mirror, but you just can't seem to help yourself for posing for the snapshot reflected in it.

I suppose, like you, I'm simply a creature of habit.

As for your opinion of me....its of zero concern.

 

[glassjester]

Not if you have to "sneak up" on it and knock it unconscious. :chuckle:

Ok, why does the "sneaking up" part preclude any bodily encroachment on the part of the baby, in the events that follow?