Infanticide

[Sava]

Originally posted by Verto
Aren't we talking about killing newborns because of 'defects'?

no, I'm against that...

[Ben Kenobi]

It didn't. But that's the line that is drawn.

Thank you. So the distinction is arbitrary, and meaningless. Ozzy is entirely correct to say that with such a meaningless and arbitrary distinction that those who believe the child should be killed before birth, have nothing to say to those who believe the child should be killed after birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

no, I'm against that...

Why?

[OzzyKP]

ozzy, you displaying the logical fallacy of "either one or the other"

How so?

[Sava]

BK: because there is a line that determines when a child is born and when it is a fetus... if the child is being killed for defects, such things could have been detected and dealt with early on. Once a baby is born into this world, it should be helped...

the line might seem arbitrary when considering the levels of development of a fetus... but that's the way life is. You have to draw a line somewhere. I want to stop abortions if possible... but not at the expense of a woman's freedom over her body. We live in an extraordinary age, where women have rights. Most people can't appreciate that women were once subordinate to men (as ordained by "god" as they would say). After all the blood, sweat, and tears to get their rights, I'll be damned if I see them taken away over a problem that has many more effective solutions.

[MRT144]

youre saying either you are against murder or for murder concerning abortion as a whole topic. There isnt any room on your scale for people who support early term abortions and thats a fallacy. youre seeing only two solutions to a complex problem.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thank you. So the distinction is arbitrary, and meaningless. Ozzy is entirely correct to say that with such a meaningless and arbitrary distinction that those who believe the child should be killed before birth, have nothing to say to those who believe the child should be killed after birth.

Which is just as arbitrary as the distinction between fertilized egg and sperm/non-fertilized egg. Hence my initial contribution to the thread (well, second actually... my first contribution was to invite you to post on-topic in this one instead of threadjacking other threads ).

jon.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sava
the line might seem arbitrary when considering the levels of development of a fetus... but that's the way life is. You have to draw a line somewhere.

And so we have.

[OzzyKP]

youre saying either you are against murder or for murder concerning abortion as a whole topic. There isnt any room on your scale for people who support early term abortions and thats a fallacy. youre seeing only two solutions to a complex problem.

Oh that wasn't even a better point I was making. I don't know if I was making a point there at all, I just threw that in to debate another point. Argue that.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MRT144
youre saying either you are against murder or for murder concerning abortion as a whole topic. There isnt any room on your scale for people who support early term abortions and thats a fallacy. youre seeing only two solutions to a complex problem.

abortion is killing, not murder... an important distinction, especially in the biblical sense.

[MRT144]

sava, thats what im saying. Now many antiabortionists are saying youre either with us or for us, against murder or for murder. Its a logical fallacy

[OzzyKP]

Sava, you really don't understand the issues at hand here. The abotion debate is not about life vs. choice, its about what we believe the fetus to be. So throw all your "fascist conservatives trying to control a woman's body" crap away. Its stupid and meaningless.

If the fetus is determined to be a "person" then killing it is murder. All sides can agree on this. Killing people is wrong, the only question is whether this is a person or not.

If the fetus is determined to not be a person, and instead is determined to be a part of a woman's body no different than a fingernail, then of course no one would say a woman couldn't trim her fingernails.

However the status of the fetus isn't clear. That is where the real argument lies. Not in some BS about a woman's right to choose. No one has a right to choose murder, the only question is whether abortion is murder or not.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MRT144
sava, thats what im saying. Now many antiabortionists are saying youre either with us or for us, against murder or for murder. Its a logical fallacy

oh okay... I thought you were trying to use that dopey argument on me.

If one is truly against killing in all forms, then they would be a Buddhist monk or something. I have respect for those people because their beliefs are consistent and sincere. I have little or no respect for people who claim to be pro-life... but support the death penalty... support wars... support the socio-economic conditions that let disease and famine thrive in the world... etc...

so if you aren't some peaceful hippy Buddhist type pacifist... you're a ****ing hypocrite and your opinions aren't worth didleyshit

[Sava]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Sava, you really don't understand the issues at hand here. The abotion debate is not about life vs. choice, its about what we believe the fetus to be. So throw all your "fascist conservatives trying to control a woman's body" crap away. Its stupid and meaningless.

If the fetus is determined to be a "person" then killing it is murder. All sides can agree on this. Killing people is wrong, the only question is whether this is a person or not.

If the fetus is determined to not be a person, and instead is determined to be a part of a woman's body no different than a fingernail, then of course no one would say a woman couldn't trim her fingernails.

However the status of the fetus isn't clear. That is where the real argument lies. Not in some BS about a woman's right to choose. No one has a right to choose murder, the only question is whether abortion is murder or not.

I clearly answered that aspect of your argument (which is a diversion from the real issue).

In the woman's body = fetus... off limits to government regulation.
Outside the woman's body = infant/person/whatever you want to call it.

That IS the issue... IT IS ABOUT A WOMAN'S BODY AND HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Because you are a man, you cannot even possibly understand that aspect of the issue. When YOU ARE RAPED and IMPREGNATED BY SOME PIECE OF HUMAN FILTH, then you can know what it feels like to have the government tell you you cannot purge your body of that infestation.

And judging from most conservative stances on social issues... the issue of abortion ISN'T about caring about the welfare of babies or human life... because if anti-choice ****s gave half a **** about human life they wouldn't continue with their self-serving social policies.

"so don't crap me now..." -- Mike Ditka

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
BK: because there is a line that determines when a child is born and when it is a fetus... if the child is being killed for defects, such things could have been detected and dealt with early on. Once a baby is born into this world, it should be helped...

the line might seem arbitrary when considering the levels of development of a fetus... but that's the way life is. You have to draw a line somewhere. I want to stop abortions if possible... but not at the expense of a woman's freedom over her body. We live in an extraordinary age, where women have rights. Most people can't appreciate that women were once subordinate to men (as ordained by "god" as they would say). After all the blood, sweat, and tears to get their rights, I'll be damned if I see them taken away over a problem that has many more effective solutions.

I'm going to draw the line at nine years old then. Hey, you have to draw the line somewhere, don't you?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
And this does not in any way equate with late-term abortion. There's a line between when a baby is a baby and when it is a fetus: when it comes out of the mother. As long as it's in the mother, it's her decision to have the pregnancy or not.

What substantive difference is there between 5 minutes before the birth and 5 minutes after birth?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava


I clearly answered that aspect of your argument (which is a diversion from the real issue).

In the woman's body = fetus... off limits to government regulation.
Outside the woman's body = infant/person/whatever you want to call it.

That IS the issue... IT IS ABOUT A WOMAN'S BODY AND HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Because you are a man, you cannot even possibly understand that aspect of the issue. When YOU ARE RAPED and IMPREGNATED BY SOME PIECE OF HUMAN FILTH, then you can know what it feels like to have the government tell you you cannot purge your body of that infestation.

And judging from most conservative stances on social issues... the issue of abortion ISN'T about caring about the welfare of babies or human life... because if anti-choice ****s gave half a **** about human life they wouldn't continue with their self-serving social policies.

"so don't crap me now..." -- Mike Ditka

Stop being a ****ing moron, Sava. YOU are defining it as part of her body if it's inside. You know what, I'm going to define the child as part of the woman's body even when it's OUTSIDE. So it's OK for the woman to kill it at any time, because it's part of her body, right?

Obviously the argument is over whether or not it IS simply a part of her body, moron.

[OzzyKP]

You, or someone just said earlier that those abortions that occur in the last month of pregnancy are very few compared to the whole. Well abortions that happen from rape or incest are a tiny proportion of the total abortions preformed.

You are an excitable hypocrite.

I'm not even going to get into it with you. You are full of ****, and not open to having a reasoned discussion. Just shooting around inflamatory propaganda.

I framed the debate the only logical way it can be framed. You beleive the fetus isn't a person, I believe it is. Thats where we differ. The rest is all just a bunch of bullshit that you refuse to acknowledge or let go.

[Kuciwalker]

Sava - if thefts of money directly out of bank vaults are rare and very few compared to the whole, does that mean they should be legal?

[Ben Kenobi]

so if you aren't some peaceful hippy Buddhist type pacifist...

abortion is killing, not murder... an important distinction, especially in the biblical sense.

Can't you at least try to be self-consistent?

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker


Stop being a ****ing moron, Sava. YOU are defining it as part of her body if it's inside. You know what, I'm going to define the child as part of the woman's body even when it's OUTSIDE. So it's OK for the woman to kill it at any time, because it's part of her body, right?

Obviously the argument is over whether or not it IS simply a part of her body, moron.

thanks for your input boy... cut the cord and take it out... does it survive? probably not...

and your making the dumbest ass argument I've seen on this topic yet... "ooh let's define the child as a part of the woman's body even when it's outside"... give me a ****ing break, my 8 year old cousin can make better arguments.

draw the line at 9 years old? okay... I'm not even going to respond to this statement that is devoid of any intelligence

You are an excitable hypocrite.

nope I'm concretely consistent... inside woman = off limits to government regulation! that's the third time I've had to explain this... do you need a sliderule? or maybe an instructional video...

You beleive the fetus isn't a person, I believe it is. Thats where we differ.

fetus... person... baby... infant... it's all semantics... your argument is entirely based on an arbitrary idea of semantics. There isn't a concrete moment when an embryo becomes what we consider to be a person. That's why there IS an arbitrary line drawn at birth. And that's where it should be.

What is really sad is that you are too hypocritical to acknowledge that you want to USURP a woman's right to her body to enforce your holier than thou idea of morality. Sorry... nice try, but no cigar.

I'm no psychologist... but maybe you use the "human life is sacred" mantra as a self-apologetic tool to reassure yourself that its okay to trample on other people's rights. Maybe it's an unconscious thing that you don't even realize. If that's the case, I pity you. There are ways to help people who are control freaks... even to the extremes of the anti-choice movement... I'm sure they can be helped through years of counseling.

I'd maybe have respect for pro-life twits if they would acknowledge their ignorance and utter hypocrisy.

[Ben Kenobi]

inside woman = off limits to government regulation!

So what about in-vitro fertilisation? Does the child concieved outside of the womb lose her rights when they implant her in the mother?

[OzzyKP]

Wow, I've never set someone on ignore before, but I'm really tempted.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
thanks for your input boy... cut the cord and take it out... does it survive? probably not...

What do you think birth is, if not "cutting the cord and taking it out"?

And are you trying to insult me by calling me "boy"? Implying that somehow your vastly greater experience ( ) confers some sort of added wisdom or intelligence (something that has been demostrated false by you many times )?

and your making the dumbest ass argument I've seen on this topic yet... "ooh let's define the child as a part of the woman's body even when it's outside"... give me a ****ing break, my 8 year old cousin can make better arguments.

draw the line at 9 years old? okay... I'm not even going to respond to this statement that is devoid of any intelligence

DUH it is devoid of "intelligence" - that's the POINT. It has EXACTLY as much justification as your distinction, thus YOUR distinction is devoid of intelligence TOO!

[OzzyKP]

Sava is using an ageist slur, "boy" to make his case. So much for his support for rights, respect, and non-discrimination. Hypocrite.

[Dis]

d

[The Mad Monk]

Is Sava a southerner? Maybe he thinks you're black.

[OzzyKP]

Then he could be racist too.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think that retaining a sense of proportion may be worthwhile, boys.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. So the distinction is arbitrary, and meaningless. Ozzy is entirely correct to say that with such a meaningless and arbitrary distinction that those who believe the child should be killed before birth, have nothing to say to those who believe the child should be killed after birth.

Should? When did the smearing campaign start?