This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

hey pro-lifers are you all willing to take care of every unwanted child?

#111hunter_gohanPosted 4/17/2013 2:08:52 PM
We also make people buy insurance for cars, and pass licencing exams before we let them operate them. Are you proposing that for sex, too? Or is your comparison just apples and oranges after all?


Apples and oranges are both fruit which grow on trees and are spheroids. They're both also plantae, angiosperms, eudicots, and rosids which originated in Asia. Hey look at that, it's insanely easy to compare apples and oranges. My comparison is in the fact that just because Y may result from X doesn't necessarily mean we should withhold all treatment of Y nor remove a person's rights. Saying "If you have sex; you might get pregnant." is no more to the point than saying "If you drive a car; you might get into a car accident." Neither is a reason to withhold treatment or remove a person's rights.

And you'd probably have a legal remedy against whoever made the food or sold it.


And you still wouldn't withhold treatment from them even though they knew it was a possibility.

If Bean-O killed babies, I would be against it. The right to your body ends where the rights of another to theirs begin.


A zygote does not have the right to use a woman's body against her will. Men kill ~255,000,000 "babies" every time they ejaculate even if that ejaculation got someone pregnant.

You keep parroting this line, and all I can do is keep pointing out that that's an argument for mandatory organ donation, not an argument against abortion.


It's showing that the "right" you keep harping on, doesn't actually exist in even a diminished capacity.

Honestly, I don't have any opposition to hospitals harvesting the dead.


Cool. What about hooking people up to other actual people against their will?

And we reach the inevitable impasse: abortion proponents will simply say that an unborn child isn't a child at all, and that legitimises whatever horrors they might inflict upon it. They dehumanise the object of their violence.

Meanwhile you'll simply say that the 255,000,000 unborn children in my testicles aren't children at all, and that legitimizes the genocide which happens every single time a man ejaculates while being completely unable to provide a convincing reason why sperm aren't people or children while a zygote magically is.

It's not my fault you insist on calling a spade a balloon.

Sperm and eggs and skin cells are cells from the human body. A fetus is a new person.

Sperm and eggs are completely different from skin cells and are new people. Please feel free to show why a sperm isn't a person while a zygote is. You won't be able to because it's a sufficiently developed brain which makes a person. However tragic it is, an anencephalic baby is not and will never be a person.

See, I can copy and paste, too.

I actually just retyped it :p
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#112hunter_gohanPosted 4/17/2013 2:13:51 PM
They're part of your body. Unborn children develop from two humans, and are a new one altogether.


An embryo is more a part of the mothers body than sperm are part of mine. Sperm aren't physically connected and nothing needs to be severed to completely remove them from me. Hell they're removed with no actual effort at all while unconcious for some people. Anyway you can argue that sperm count as part of the body would also include embryos as part of the mother's body. They are both contiguous with embryos actually going a step further and being physically connected. Also clones. Two parents aren't required to make a new being even in sexual organisms.

http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2006/07/05/dolly.jpg

Isn't any less of a sheep; eventhough, she didn't develop from two sheep.

If you'll recall, I never made those arguments, "oh, he could cure cancer!" etc. It doesn't matter who the child turns out to be; as an innocent child, they have the right to life. It's inherent and independent of what they grow up to be.


Not that specific one, but your entire argument is that a potential person overwrites the rights of an actual person with a right that, currently, no actual people have even in a diminished capacity. Which is part of the same mentality which seemingly has a complete inability to deal with what actually is.

Not all rights are equal. The right to life is more important than pretty much all other rights.


This "right to life" which currently does not exist at all in either the US or Canada for even actual people wrt corpses nevermind a potential person or actual people wrt other actual people. If I'm dying of kidney failure, can I forcefully hook myself up to you against your will? Can someone else forcefully hook us up while I was unconscious and had no part at all in it?

Yes, some a mother's rights may be infringed upon (most of the time, through her own voluntary choice to become pregnant), but there exists in my country reasonable limits on freedom.


Having sex is not necessarily voluntarily becoming pregnant. It certainly can be, but quite obviously is not if the women is seeking an elective abortion.

And I think preventing unborn children from being terminated is a damn good and reasonable reason to restrict freedoms.


Awesome, so how many of your rights can we infringe upon to save the lives of the 255,000,000 unborn children you currently have? It is in no way reasonable to restrict actual peoples freedoms in favor of a potential person.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#113hunter_gohanPosted 4/17/2013 2:18:10 PM
Tell that to the Canadian government.


I doubt they'd listen to me I'm not even Canadian. Take solace in the fact that the vast, vast majority of abortions take place prior to week 13(this is why I always talk about zygotes or embryos instead of even fetuses in these arguments) and that only a very small fraction happen past week 20 nevermind week 24. Which, specifically for Canada, is a whopping 0.3% past week 20 while 90.1% are before week 13 and 97.5% before week 17.

"320 abortions were done over 20 weeks gestation in 2003. [2] Almost all of these occurred between 20 and 22 weeks, a small number for compelling social reasons e.g., teenagers who were in denial of their pregnancy, women in abusive relationships, etc. but most were done for serious maternal health reasons or fetal anomalies. Only a tiny handful of doctors in all of Canada are trained and willing to do abortions after 20 weeks."

"The 3rd trimester begins after 24 weeks. The number of abortions done after 24 weeks in Canada is very small, although we don't have exact figures. Without exception, all are done in cases of lethal fetal abnormality, where the fetus cannot survive after birth."

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html

You're arguing against something that apparently doesn't even exist. Which is funny cause you accused me of doing that; eventhough, that position is held by many politicians and the freaking Pope.

Alright, great! See, this is what I mean, this is a partial victory. This is at least some level of protection, and it helps to understand by what measure you would confer rights on a fetus.


It's not at all a partial victory. A zygote or an embryo isn't even sentient nevermind sapient and therefore an actual persons rights should always take precedent.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#114hunter_gohanPosted 4/22/2013 8:23:06 PM
bump
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.