Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how you can prevent someone travelling out of the country to do something that is legal elsewhere.

They did so with Gary Glitter.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't get the necessity. Just because someone is infringing on your rights doesn't give you the right to kill them

You never answered my previous question. If it was your body that a child's life was depending on, for example need of one of your kidneys or a piece of your liver, would you be happy with the State assuming control of your body to protect that child's life?

antiskeptic

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Everybody knows this to be factual ahem!

When he sits on Peters chair and wears a funny hat he becomes infallible.
Great to watch I'd say.

If he were pronouncing on the 3.45 at Epsom next Tuesday then I'd certainly pay attention. Otherwise not.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

They did so with Gary Glitter.

Molesting children is legal somewhere?

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Molesting children is legal somewhere?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=worldwide+age+of+consent :rolleyes:

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

Many atheists would say it's those beliefs that lead to atheism. The vacuum called "we can't believe in nothing" has to be filled with something. For nature abhors a vacuum.

I would have to disagree with that. My view is that the lack of belief underpins the rest of the atheist's views.

Even if the other beliefs lead to the lack of one, the lack takes over as the persons worldview.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think that. I think that the State should do everything in it's power to help the woman overcome. But stop short of providing abortion services.

Then the state isn't doing everything in its power.

antiskeptic wrote: »

On murder. That would be a matter for the authorities in the jurisdiction where the abortion was carried out.

So your worldview takes into account jurisdiction now?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the person a minor then the parents/guardian would decide on things. I don't see how you can prevent someone travelling out of the country to do something that is legal elsewhere.

Doesn't this contradict your "worldview", a sin is a sin no matter where it is committed.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

You never answered my previous question. If it was your body that a child's life was depending on, for example need of one of your kidneys or a piece of your liver, would you be happy with the State assuming control of your body to protect that child's life?

There's a category difference in here. In one case the State would intervene to kill. In the other, it would intervene to save.

I don't see how a person can be compelled to save another person whose life is threatened by circumstances that have nothing to do with the potential saviour. At least not to the extent of risking to their own life.

Which isn't the same case as the pregnant mother.

DB21

antiskeptic wrote: »

.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I will put this simply;
Justify to me why something without a brain is alive.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you read that support services be installed to help the mother overcome (without abortion) the trauma of a rape pregancy you computed not giving a crap about the mother?

If you figure giving equal value to both lives (that neither is to be preferred) as not giving a crap about one life then you need to up the ante in your argumentation. I'm not much in the mood for football terrace level rhetoric..

Honestly.

You say that you are giving equal value to both lives, that you are preferring neither. Yet you give no heed to the opinions or desires of one of those lives whatsoever. Your proposed support service, by explicitly ignoring the option of abortion, shows itself to be only interested in helping mothers have babies they may not want or be able to care for. How can you possibly assume that all rape victims can be councelled into accepting the pregnancy, even only until the point of birth and adoption? How would you go about councelling a child, so young that they may not even survive the birth process, into accepting their pregnancy?

You don't care about the mother. You don't even really care about the foetus, or you cease caring about it the moment it's born. You only care that a birth happens. And why? Because a bunch of celibate old men tell you to.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

Then the state isn't doing everything in its power.

Short of abortion it can.

So your worldview takes into account jurisdiction now?

Of course. The discussion involves having one's worldview hold sway in this jurisdiction. That's not to say I wouldn't want it hold sway elsewhere but this is where I have a vote.

Doesn't this contradict your "worldview", a sin is a sin no matter where it is committed.

There's a difference between sin and lawbreaking. I was dealing with the law breaking aspect of things. For that is what was asked.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't get the necessity. Just because someone is infringing on your rights doesn't give you the right to kill them

The child may have a right to life but it has no right to the mothers body.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

Short of abortion it can.




Of course. The discussion involves having one's worldview hold sway in this jurisdiction. That's not to say I wouldn't want it hold sway elsewhere but this is where I have a vote.




There's a difference between sin and lawbreaking. I was dealing with the law breaking aspect of things. For that is what was asked.

Indeed, there is a difference between sin and lawbreaking.

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a category difference in here. In one case the State would intervene to kill. In the other, it would intervene to save.

I don't see how a person can be compelled to save another person whose life is threatened by circumstances that have nothing to do with the potential saviour. At least not to the extent of risking to their own life.

Which isn't the same case as the pregnant mother.

You're weaselling out of things. Fact is, you care about the children when it's only women who have to put their health on the line bringing the child to term and it's never something you have to worry about yourself. You'd be singing a different tune if it was your body the State was claiming control over. And don't go trying this "It's her own fault she was knocked up" bull****.

antiskeptic wrote: »

whose life is threatened by circumstances that have nothing to do with the potential saviour.

What about rape victims?

antiskeptic wrote: »

At least not to the extent of risking to their own life.

A partial liver transplant is less risky and has a shorter recovery time than pregnancy.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You say that you are giving equal value to both lives, that you are preferring neither. Yet you give no heed to the opinions or desires of one of those lives whatsoever.

Heed. But not the right to end the life of the other.

Your proposed support service, by explicitly ignoring the option of abortion, shows itself to be only interested in helping mothers have babies they may not want or be able to care for.

There are services that deal with babies whose mothers don't want or can't care for them

How can you possibly assume that all rape victims can be councelled into accepting the pregnancy, even only until the point of birth and adoption?

I don't assume. Since you have read through this thread you'll have noticed my saying there was a chance the person could overcome the trauma (where overcome didn't mean no pain, suffering or scars)

How would you go about councelling a child, so young that they may not even survive the birth process, into accepting their pregnancy?

The context has been a suicidal rape victim. In the context of your example, or Savita, then my view would be that the best attempt is made to save both lives. In the case of Savita, the bishops had it about right (but fudged in the end). In her case it would have meant early delivery of the child. That such early delivery of the child wouldn't have enabled the survival of the child wouldn't confound the principle.

Semantics in that case for what effectively is an abortion, but you've satisifed the demand to make your best effort to protect both.

You don't care about the mother. You don't even really care about the foetus, or you cease caring about it the moment it's born. You only care that a birth happens. And why? Because a bunch of celibate old men tell you too.

I'm not a Catholic. Indeed, I find it's uttering cause me to heave most times.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

You're weaselling out of things. Fact is, you care about the children when it's only women who have to put their health on the line bringing the child to term and it's never something you have to worry about yourself. You'd be singing a different tune if it was your body the State was claiming control over. And don't go trying this "It's her own fault she was knocked up" bull****.

...

What about rape victims?

What about them?

A partial liver transplant is less risky and has a shorter recovery time than pregnancy.

Which is to say: it's risky.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

The child may have a right to life but it has no right to the mothers body.

When the right to life is held uppermost then I'm afraid it does.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=worldwide+age+of+consent :rolleyes:

I would imagine the English authorites figured Glitter unlikely to bind himself to such guidelines

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a difference between sin and lawbreaking.

Do you believe that abortion is a sin?

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is to say: it's risky.

and so is pregnancy which you're perfectly fine with the State imposing. Let me ask you again, would you be okay with the State having similar control over your body as it does over womens in order to protect children's lives?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

When the right to life is held uppermost then I'm afraid it does.

I'm still trying to argue from the point where it has a right to life.

You and I have a right to life but if we cant breath we cannot expect someone else to give us one of their lungs.

The mothers body is hers not the childs. The child has its own body. If its not capable of living it will die. Still has a right to life though.

I don't have any of these views myself but do you see where this could be argued?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you believe that abortion is a sin?

Sure.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

and so is pregnancy which you're perfectly fine with the State imposing.

The State isn't imposing it. The pregnancy already has imposed itself. The question now is whether the State will provide termination.

Let me ask you again, would you be okay with the State having similar control over your body as it does over womens in order to protect children's lives?

I've already answered. You need to argue against that answer rather than ask again.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

I'm still trying to argue from the point where it has a right to life.

Do so holding that right uppermost in your thinking.

You and I have a right to life but if we cant breath we cannot expect someone else to give us one of their lungs.

No. But if we're already attached to someones lungs and they detach us and we die then their up on charges. If you hold the right to life uppermost.

The mothers body is hers not the childs.

Not so thus. The two are intertwined.

The child has its own body. If its not capable of living it will die. Still has a right to life though.

I don't have any of these views myself but do you see where this could be argued?

I can see where the argument starts. But when you're dealing with intertwined life then it begins to unravel. Simply by holding the right to life uppermost.

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

The State isn't imposing it. The pregnancy already has imposed itself. The question now is whether the State will provide termination.

So if the pregnancy was imposed by rape, it's perfectly okay for her to be forced to go through it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've already answered. You need to argue against that answer rather than ask again.

The answer of course being no, you weren't prepared to accept risk to or State control over your body but that it's okay when it's women's bodies.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

So if the pregnancy was imposed by rape, it's perfectly okay for her to be forced to go through it?

Force implies effort and action on someones part - whereas nothing need be done for the pregnancy to be gone through. It's happening and will continue to happen without anyone doing anything.

The answer of course being no, you weren't prepared to accept risk to or State control over your body but that it's okay when it's women's bodies.

With reasons being given: category difference territory. Am I to take it on second asking that you're not prepared to deal with that argument? Going, going..

antiskeptic

DB21 wrote: »

You're being deliberately obtuse.

You're running out of road.

I will put this simply;
Justify to me why something without a brain is alive.

My tomato plant is alive. Biological fact.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Heed. But not the right to end the life of the other.

How exactly are you heeding a rape victim when you tell them they cannot have an abortion?

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are services that deal with babies whose mothers don't want or can't care for them

Are there services for women who don't want or can't handle the pregnancy? The only one I can think of is abortion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't assume. Since you have read through this thread you'll have noticed my saying there was a chance the person could overcome the trauma (where overcome didn't mean no pain, suffering or scars)

Oh a chance is it? How much of a chance? And what about the women who don't have that chance, who don't overcome that trauma? They just have to suffer it?

There's a chance you could overcome the trauma of the government forcing you to give half your liver to someone in need. Should we test that chance?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The context has been a suicidal rape victim. In the context of your example, or Savita, then my view would be that the best attempt is made to save both lives. In the case of Savita, the bishops had it about right (but fudged in the end). In her case it would have meant early delivery of the child. That such early delivery of the child wouldn't have enabled the survival of the child wouldn't confound the principle.

Semantics in that case for what effectively is an abortion, but you've satisifed the demand to make your best effort to protect both.

So you advocate what is in fact an abortion, but with semantics, you call it something else. FFS you are even using word games to try and hide from your god what you admit is abortion. How moronic do you think your god is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic. Indeed, I find it's uttering cause me to heave most times.

Which flavour of christian are you?

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Force implies effort and action on someones part - whereas nothing need be done for the pregnancy to be gone through. It's happening and will continue to happen without anyone doing anything.

If a patient presents to you with a curable illness and you refuse to treat that patient, then yes, you are forcing that patient to undergo the illness you could have prevented. Arguing over syntax and cause vs effect doesn't absolve you of moral obligations.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With reasons being given: category difference territory. Am I to take it on second asking that you're not prepared to deal with that argument? Going, going..

There is no category difference. I asked you if you were prepared to surrender control of your body to a life that was not viable without the assistance of your body. Just as the life of a foetus isn't viable without a mother's body and the risks and scars that go with that. You said you were only okay with that in the case of a mother's body and not your own. Trying to argue a difference between organs that are failing and organs that have not yet developed is simply weaselling out of things.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My tomato plant is alive. Biological fact.

You about to start arguing for tomato plants to have rights over women's bodies now?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do so holding that right uppermost in your thinking.




No. But if we're already attached to someones lungs and they detach us and we die then their up on charges. If you hold the right to life uppermost.





Not so thus. The two are intertwined.



I can see where the argument starts. But when you're dealing with intertwined life then it begins to unravel. Simply by holding the right to life uppermost.

I can see where you are arguing from antiskeptic.

The intertwined does create a grey area. I believe that it wouldn't be murder but suffocation on the part of the person without proper bodily functions.

Well, this one won't get resolved tonight But I must be off antiskeptic. It was a good discussion. Perhaps we will continue it in the future, perhaps not.

Goodnight.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure.

Then quite playing stupid games and answer Stupify's question:

Stupify wrote:

antiskeptic wrote:

If the person a minor then the parents/guardian would decide on things. I don't see how you can prevent someone travelling out of the country to do something that is legal elsewhere.

Doesn't this contradict your "worldview", a sin is a sin no matter where it is committed.

You want abortion banned because you see it as a sin. Except you don't seem to care much if it happens outside of the country. A kind of "out of sight, out of mind" worldview. Which makes your supposed objective morality about as consistent as a fart powered motorcycle.