toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[surrender]

Claiming that she can decide for herself when you control her options is being quite dishonest. If you really believe this nonsense then you are lying to yourself.
Yes, it's exactly the same thing.
Yeah, but we both know that's just sophistry. It's like saying, "Oh, I'm not denying you the right to drive, I'm just eliminating all the cars!".
But of course you'll force them to do it your way regardless.

So, as soon as one of your decisions has an indirect impact on another’s decision, you retract it?

My decision to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions has nothing to do with any woman at all. If it does indirectly affect her decision (i.e. she is unable to get an abortion), why should that hinder me from following my conscience?

Are you asking me to transgress my conscience (& believe I’m participating in the death of a human being) just so I don’t indirectly affect the decision of another person?

Here's the bottom line. Are you certain that abortion is not the taking of a life? If you aren’t certain, are you okay that you may be participating in the ending of an innocent life (many lives) by approving the practice of abortion by doctors?

 

[Layla]

No, I haven’t. I’ve made the decision that it’s illegal for doctors to perform abortions.

My decision to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions has nothing to do with any woman at all.

Actually, it has a lot to do with every woman who wants an abortion. If you make it illegal, you remove her choice. You make the decision for her.

 

[Layla]

Here's the bottom line. Are you certain that abortion is not the taking of a life? If you aren’t certain, are you okay that you may be participating in the ending of an innocent life (many lives) by approving the practice of abortion by doctors?

That's fine, but it is deciding for others. Stop pretending. Just say that's what you want to do. There's nothing wrong with it. We decide for others that they shouldn't murder people. I'm cool with that.

 

[Memento Mori]

Actually, it has a lot to do with every woman who wants an abortion. If you make it illegal, you remove her choice. You make the decision for her.

Actually, there are much larger problems with making it illegal like back alley abortions, than removing a woman's choice.

I don't think you can make the argument for abortion hinged solely upon choice. It would be similar to disallowing certain recreational drugs because of the destructive nature of those drugs. Just because the choice is limited does not mean we should attempt to unfetter and allow each individual to choose. While it is a painting of fairies and pixie dust, choice does not make something a-okay.

I suggest a paradigm shift in your argument.

 

[surrender]

Actually, it has a lot to do with every woman who wants an abortion. If you make it illegal, you remove her choice. You make the decision for her.

Yes, my decision to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions hinders a woman’s ability to follow through with her desire to have an abortion, but, no, I am not “making a decision for her.”

Your choice to make certain drugs illegal has had an impact on the ease of which I am able to partake in certain drugs, but you are not making the choice FOR me when I choose to not partake in illegal drugs. YOU get no credit for MY choice to refrain from the use of illegal drugs.

We decide for others that they shouldn't murder people.

Since there is the slightest chance it is murder, yes, I am deciding that doctors should not practice abortion.

I find it a most bizarre argument that I am unreasonable for not sacrificing my own moral conscience just so others can have one more option available to them.

If one believes that there is the slightest chance that life begins at conception (and I don’t know of anyone who would deny there’s, at least, a chance of this), what does their approval of abortions reveal about them?

 

[Layla]

Actually, there are much larger problems with making it illegal like back alley abortions, than removing a woman's choice.

I don't think you can make the argument for abortion hinged solely upon choice. It would be similar to disallowing certain recreational drugs because of the destructive nature of those drugs. Just because the choice is limited does not mean we should attempt to unfetter and allow each individual to choose. While it is a painting of fairies and pixie dust, choice does not make something a-okay.

I suggest a paradigm shift in your argument.

That isn't my argument? I don't think I've made an argument in this thread, merely a few observations. I was just pointing out a flaw I saw in his/her argument.

Yes, my decision to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions hinders a woman’s ability to follow through with her desire to have an abortion, but, no, I am not “making a decision for her.”

Your choice to make certain drugs illegal has had an impact on the ease of which I am able to partake in certain drugs, but you are not making the choice FOR me when I choose to not partake in illegal drugs. YOU get no credit for MY choice to refrain from the use of illegal drugs.

You are trying to make the decision for her. The fact that she might go against the law is kind of irrelevant. Drugs are illegal cause we want to stop people using them... we want to make that choice for them. Of course, law is not infallible, and people still find ways to break it sometimes. Doesn't change the fact that the act of enacting a law is the decision on the part of the lawmaker to restrict the choices of others.

I find it a most bizarre argument that I am unreasonable for not sacrificing my own moral conscience just so others can have one more option available to them.

Where did I say that you were unreasonable? I said, twice I think, that that's fine... that's the basis of all law, as I stated above. There's nothing wrong with deciding as a society that something is bad and we want to prevent people choosing to do it. All I'm saying is don't pretend that you're not doing that. Because you are.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Being raped is not something a woman does. It’s something that is done to the woman.

It's way over your head . . . isn't it?

Are you uncomfortable with our discussion? If not, why the sarcasm?

I'm not uncomfortable with YOUR decision . . . nor am I uncomfortable with mine.

It has nothing to do with any person. When two contrary definitions are presented, both cannot be true at the same time.

Non-contradiction do not hold when opinions are in play . . . sorry for the inconvenience.

Of course I agree. That’s the entire point of this particular part of the discussion—that either option could be true.

The points are contradictory but either can be true? You shoot down your own argument.

More sarcasm?

Sure . . . why not.

Nothing I’ve said has been sarcastic or insulting.

Sarcasm is a tried and trusted form of argument . . . you should try it some time . . . or perhaps not.

So, I must have hit a nerve…something I’ve said has rung true for you.

Nope.

It rang true because I only repeated what you yourself admitted to—that you don’t care you could end up responsible for taking the life of another.

Only vicariously. I don't have to make the decision to have an abortion.

Again, I'm merely repeating what you’ve admitted to. And I appreciate that you didn’t try to dance around it. I wish more who took your position would just admit that and move on.

:deadhorse:

But I also must say I’m grateful to see a twinge of doubt in your position, as evidenced by your sarcastic digs.

I have no doubt that you have trouble deciding which side of the bed to get out of in the morning.

And I’m glad the doubt hovers due to the fact that it actually bothers you that you could be responsible for the death of an innocent life.

It does? I don't think so . . . not when it comes to abortion anyway.

 

[PureX]

So, as soon as one of your decisions has an indirect impact on another’s decision, you retract it?

I am responsible for my own decisions. So is everyone else. The "impact" other people have on me does not relieve me of my responsibility, nor does it make them somehow responsible for the decisions I make. I am an autonomous adult human being.

My decision to make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions has nothing to do with any woman at all. If it does indirectly affect her decision (i.e. she is unable to get an abortion), why should that hinder me from following my conscience?

Perhaps, because you are not God? How incredibly huge must your ego be to imagine that it's up to you to decide what procedures doctors can and can't perform for other people based solely on your own "conscience"? Even God Himself has chosen not to exercise this option.

Are you asking me to transgress my conscience (& believe I’m participating in the death of a human being) just so I don’t indirectly affect the decision of another person?

I'm trying to point out that your conscience is not divine, and neither are you. Those other humans beings have just as much right to decide what's right or wrong as you do. And they are just as likely to BE right, as you think you are. The fact that you don't understand this is frankly a little scary.

Here's the bottom line. Are you certain that abortion is not the taking of a life? If you aren’t certain, are you okay that you may be participating in the ending of an innocent life (many lives) by approving the practice of abortion by doctors?

You are not participating in nor responsible for other people's decisions by supporting and respecting their right to make them. This assumption that you are responsible is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

People have the right to free speech, for example. Yet just because we support their right to speak freely does not mean that we are responsible for whatever they say. We're simply not that potent.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You are not participating in nor responsible for other people's decisions by supporting and respecting their right to make them. This assumption that you are responsible is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

People have the right to free speech, for example. Yet just because we support their right to speak freely does not mean that we are responsible for whatever they say. We're simply not that potent.

We don't even have to agree with what someone says (or does [as long as it is not illegal]) but can support their right to say (do) it . . .

:thumb:

 

[alwight]

Here's the bottom line. Are you certain that abortion is not the taking of a life? If you aren’t certain, are you okay that you may be participating in the ending of an innocent life (many lives) by approving the practice of abortion by doctors?

Clearly such an abortion is in fact preventing a potential human person's life from developing from something that is imo currently not capable of being that as I see it. If aborting a rapist's zygote benefits a raped woman based on all the prevailing individual circumstances and is her own choice then yes an abortion is fine by me.
Btw Potential human persons are being prevented routinely by family planning.

No I am not certain that the next time I drive my car I won't kill someone. Life is about weighing up the individual situations and making hopefully honest human choices which sometimes involves risk, else nothing would be gained by being alive imo.
It is my choice to drive my car anyway based on my judgement of risk, the likely outcome and its benefit to me and mine and that I don't think that I will kill anyone.

 

[Stripe]

It is a matter of choice. If I were a woman I wouldn't want to even carry his (my rapist's) child much less raise it.

What is it that is a matter of choice? It is murdering an unborn child that is being chosen.

Weirdly, your posts are helping me to understand Alate_One's view better.

What's not to understand? She's very explicit. She thinks a woman should be allowed to murder her child.

Life... doesn't really have inherent value.

:doh:

Those killed in these ways are all persons

Those ways exist because we value life.

I'm not saying that I agree, but I do understand a little better.

You, more than most, have motivation to look for understanding among that which opposes the truth.

Yes, you are. If you want it illegal, you want to prohibit the choices of others. There's nothing wrong with that stance, if you believe abortion is murder, but don't pretend you're not trying to make decisions for other people because you are.

The law doesn't remove choice. Like the stupid one cannot understand, it is not forcing anyone to do anything in making murder illegal. We make theft illegal. That does not force anyone to get a job and stop ripping others off.

At some point, the mother's hesitation (acting on preventing or ending the pregnancy) has to damage her case for being wronged and thus her rights vs. the potential child's rights.

Oh, boy. You're one sick freak! The woman has less right to claim having been wronged the longer she doesn't murder her baby? You're utterly insane.

Where exactly that line should be, I don't know for sure, but it will certainly be past what Mary would consider "personhood".

And certainly after what you consider personhood. The difference being, there is no chance that what Mary advocates is murder.

If it's illegal, she can't do it. You have removed her decision. You have made the decision your own.

Thus there are no criminals in the world as their choice to commit crimes has been removed by the law. :dizzy:

 

[Silent Hunter]

What is it that is a matter of choice? It is murdering an unborn child that is being chosen.

A few cells in a puddle of water is not a child . . . ergo . . . not murder.

 

[surrender]

You are trying to make the decision for her. The fact that she might go against the law is kind of irrelevant. Drugs are illegal cause we want to stop people using them... we want to make that choice for them.

We want to restrict the use, yes, but my decision not to use them is still mine. It doesn’t belong to anyone else.

Of course, law is not infallible, and people still find ways to break it sometimes. Doesn't change the fact that the act of enacting a law is the decision on the part of the lawmaker to restrict the choices of others.

Absolutely, it restricts others, but my intent is not to make any decision for any woman. My intent is to stop doctors from performing what I see as, well, murder, really. I simply refuse to go along with this lame argument (not by you necessarily, but those who cry I’m controlling what happens to their bodies & such), “You are making MY decision for me, it’s not fair, etc.” As if that argument is supposed to have an effect on my decision that doctors shouldn’t murder. “Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was making your life miserable, so I’ll just go ahead and allow doctors to murder and in doing so become an accessory to murder.” I guess I didn’t realize this is all about the woman and nothing to do with these medical doctors committing murder all day long.

Where did I say that you were unreasonable? I said, twice I think, that that's fine

I know. I’m not saying, you. But that’s the argument out there.

 

[surrender]

It's way over your head . . . isn't it?

No, Silent Hunter, rape is not over my head, I have personal experience with it. So, maybe you can stop the arrogant sarcasm for now, eh?

I'm not uncomfortable with YOUR decision . . . nor am I uncomfortable with mine.

That wasn’t my question. It’s the discussion that seems to get you riled up.

Sure . . . why not.

It’s childish. This is an adult conversation.

Sarcasm is a tried and trusted form of argument

It’s used when one has no other defense.

It does? I don't think so . . . not when it comes to abortion anyway.

You've agreed there is a possibility that life begins at conception. You admit you could possibly be an accomplice to murder by allowing doctors to perform abortions. You say you don't care, but I'm holding out hope for you...

 

[Stripe]

A few cells in a puddle of water is not a child . . . ergo . . . not murder.

Sod off, retard. :up:

 

[MaryContrary]

A few cells in a puddle of water is not a child . . . ergo . . . not murder.

This is wholly dishonest and so speaks only to your having no argument or not caring enough to present one.

It's not just a few cells in a puddle of water. It's biologically a unique, living, individual human being. And since this entire debate hinges on the question of whether or not killing it constitutes murder this is a wholly, even intentionally, dishonest argument.

 

[Silent Hunter]

No, Silent Hunter, rape is not over my head, I have personal experience with it.

I'm sorry to hear that. The sarcasm was over your head.

So, maybe you can stop the arrogant sarcasm for now, eh?

I probably won't since it is an effective argument tactic thus far.

That wasn’t my question. It’s the discussion that seems to get you riled up.

I'm not in the least bit "riled" . . . you, however . . .

It’s childish. This is an adult conversation.

Adults use sarcasm far more often than children to get their point across.

It’s used when one has no other defense.

Nope . . . that would be the ad hominem . . . such as seen . . . here and here.

You've agreed there is a possibility that life begins at conception.

Life? Absolutely. Personhood isn't so clear-cut.

You admit you could possibly be an accomplice to murder by allowing doctors to perform abortions.

No, I didn't. I have no problem with abortion.

You say you don't care, but I'm holding out hope for you...

.

 

[Silent Hunter]

This is wholly dishonest and so speaks only to your having no argument or not caring enough to present one.

I don't have to make an "argument" for what a few cells in a puddle of water are MC . . . that would be YOUR job. In my opinion "personhood" is the defining factor of when abortion is not an option. Can you define it without it being more than just your opinion?

It's not just a few cells in a puddle of water.

Sure it is. You must have missed that part in biology class . . . .

It's biologically a unique, living, individual human being.

You are assuming (asserting) that for which you have yet to provide evidence. The cells are human . . . so are the cells from a scraping from your inner cheek. It (and they) are not a person in any sense of the word.

And since this entire debate hinges on the question of whether or not killing it constitutes murder this is a wholly, even intentionally, dishonest argument.

I'm not making an argument . . . I'm making an observation. It is you who has to do the convincing.

 

[MaryContrary]

I don't have to make an "argument" for what a few cells in a puddle of water are MC . . . that would be YOUR job. In my opinion "personhood" is the defining factor of when abortion is not an option. Can you define it without it being more than just your opinion?

Sure it is. You must have missed that part in biology class . . . .

You are assuming (asserting) that for which you have yet to provide evidence. The cells are human . . . so are the cells from a scraping from your inner cheek. It (and they) are not a person in any sense of the word.

I'm not making an argument . . . I'm making an observation. It is you who has to do the convincing.

No, what you're doing is being a troll. There's nothing of substance here at all. :nono:

 

[Silent Hunter]

No, what you're doing is being a troll.

Ad hominems aren't very helpful to the discussion MC. They do provide evidence that you cannot back up your claim(s) however.

There's nothing of substance here at all.

I thought it was a simple question . . . When does a person become a person and not a few cells in a puddle of water?