'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by visceral_instinct, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Thanks. Should I expect my membership card in the mail soon?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    What "child"?

    A zygote and embryo is not a "child".

    Your black person argument does not hold. It just shows you are a tad twisted and clutching at straws.

    As for corporate law.. Heh.. A company is nothing like an individual person. Employees and zygotes are not the same. Laws that govern companies to protect the employees against unfair dismissal and scrupulous work practices that places their lives in danger is not the same as a woman drinking or smoking during pregnancy or having an abortion. No where near the same. When you learn to recognise individual rights over one's body you'll come to understand that difference.

    Unscrupulous work practices with intent to harm and the workers, actual real people, not consenting to it or even been made aware of it.. think about it. A zygote is not a person and is not classified as a person. Nor is an embryo.

    But they do exist. The children who sued were born and are deemed as individuals with rights. They were successful because the organisations knowingly poisoned others which led to their being born with severe health issues. Those others, the mothers primarily, never consented to the damage done to their reproductive organs (their eggs and ovaries).. Do you understand now?

    Ah yes, the inane 'lol'. What will be next? OMFGWTFLMFAO?

    It still does not answer the question. Why do your morals and beliefs mean more than my own when it comes to my reproductive organs, for example?

    If I wished to expell the contents of my uterus, why should your morals come into play? Why do you think you should have the right to determine what grows in my uterus? Why should your morals determine what stays in my uterus or any other woman's uterus?

    In short, what makes you God?

    You consider women to be like livestock and assets? Or just the contents of their uterus?

    It is my uterus and I will do with it what I choose. The same goes for its contents. Just as I have no say how you wish to dispose of the contents of your gonads. Because they are yours. You keep bringing up the black person argument.. But you fail to notice that you wish to impose the same sort of rules that plantation owners had on their slaves on women's reproductive organs and whatever potential human they may be carrying.

    Do you see why your black person argument fails now?

    You are treating the mother like she is the black slave and denying her the right to her own body.

    One could say that you are trolling and goading.

    It is a case of your values against mine and since it is my body for example, if I wished to have an abortion, my values would win out against yours. Do you understand now?

    Having carried two children, both of whom to the utter detriment of my physical health, I can assure you, even my doctors and specialists refer to them as parasites. But I wanted them so I kept them and they are now my born feral parasites and I would die for them in an instant. A foreign body in your own that drains you of everything is a parasite, by any definition of the word.

    I would say that you were goading her.

    Yes, very much so.

    A fertilised egg is not an "actual person". It has the potential to be a person if it is not expelled from the mother's body either naturally or unnaturally.

    A fertilised egg is not a "person". And it is "my body" and "my convenience" over yours. There is no ethical issue here. There can be an ethical issue if you deem your morals and values to be more important than a woman's over her body".

    But since you are nothing, the reality is that there can be no ethical issue.

    You called her a "two faced whore". In my opinion, you are a "fucking retard".

    Friendly banter of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please be consistent.
    If you are going to continue with the language of unconsciousness, you will also need a special term for the mother (to be a mother, one must have a child, yes?)

    On the contrary, the more you try to justify your argument, the more you seem to require an expanded repertoire of special terms ....
    I think you miss the point.

    An unscrupulous company can be liable to pay damages (in the case of toxicity that causes birth defects) to an entity who, in your books, doesn't have recourse to a scrap of justice issues

    yet damages can still be meted out on account of the experiences of the said embryo ... so go figure
    :shrug:


    But how can they make claim to a state when they, according to your analysis, don't exist?

    IOW why do you require a separate kind of thinking in the case of abortion?
    If an entity can be awarded damages to experiences in the womb, why can't you see abortion also as a greater type of damages, namely murder?

    (BTW as is the case of murder, usually the recipient isn't around to receive the damages, yet that doesn't halt the host of justice and ethical issues that come to bear on the perpetrator)



    I did answer the question of why, namely because its not purely a question of "my" genitals

    You are free to do what ever you want, but you are not free of the consequences. Society is kind of like that in general, regardless whether you want to draw the final tier of authority at state run legislation or not.


    no
    if you read it again, its more that you consider the reproductive consequences of your uterus livestock and assets

    Take it you also don't have problems with pregnant mums smoking 6 packs a day or using heroin or crack ....
    Technically, no.

    If you decide to have a late term abortion, you will get yourself in a lot of hot water in most parts of the world

    again, technically no.

    If I am the father of a child, I will be legally forced to confirm to a host of regulations for the financial upkeep of it (again, in most parts of the world)

    again, technically no.

    The moment a second person comes on teh scene, it is no longer purely a question of "my, my my"

    How can you be so cruel as to neglect the hardship plantation owners had to undergo as a consequence of being legally forced to abide by legislation giving blacks equal rights?
    Do you see why you have more in common with the plantation owners and the like?
    You are treating the child in the womb worse than a black slave, but by using the same essential tools of the era - namely using the language of unconsciousness to defend an indefensible position


    feel free to indicate the ad homs (I don't think calling Lucy a two faced whore in the midst of her hate spiel is valid, particularly if it is tagged with a request to please continue the ad homming)
    The argument of the strong over powering the weak isn't necessarily a valid victory of values.

    I mean back in the day, many new settlers in colonial settings also had a similar victory of "values"

    So if a woman comes to them bearing a child or a tape worm, their initial response is to offer suggestions on how to get rid of it?

    And if a woman decides to keep the child, their reaction is the same as if the woman had decided to harbor the tape worm?


    children continue to be parasites (ie sucking the resources of finance, health and personal freedom of their parents) for a long time after they are born so it doesn't really hold - we do however have the situation where you are prepared to die for them in an instant, yet kill them in another so something else is at play other than their (so-called) mere status as a parasite.


    why yes, I certainly have a hide letting that gem drop after her liturgy of personal insult


    then you might as well drop the whole "its a parasite so it has no rights" deal


    a "fertilized egg" that suffers from the misconduct of a company with a toxic workplace still stands to receive a pay out however


    Its not so much my convenience that is at stake, any more than a discussion on the ethics of black slavery revolves around my convenience

    I think in the twilight of your mind you know you have done something wrong


    congrats on resolving the matter
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    According to the blurb on your heading, you are already a "registered senior user"


    quadraphonics
    Registered Senior User (5,594 posts)



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Concidering it is just a paricite the term could well be "infected women" or "infected pt"
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    hmmm
    sounds like it would revolutionize the greeting card industry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    They already exist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    actually the images and the typography tend to be found on totally different cards
     
  12. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    Untrue, that doesn't have anything to do with logical consistency e.g. we are mechanical, physical but still we're different from the machines we build.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    A woman who lives down the road has dogs and she calls herself mummy. A woman can be a mother without physically having children.

    Not at all. I don't give legal and equal rights to a zygote. You seem to believe they should have such rights.

    Those who sue are entities and do exist.

    Nope. Those who sue are not embryos but actual people.

    Do you know the difference between the two?

    They are awarded damages because the companies damaged the mother/father's bodies which resulted in their being born with physical or mental difficulties and the companies who harmed their parents knew of the damage that would occur to those people and any offspring they may have in the future.

    Do you think your balls belong to the greater community?

    What consequences?

    Abortion is legal. So what consequences? God will smite them? Since there is no God, that is kind of a moot point. Will they be turned into smurfs maybe? Again, pure fantasy..

    Or are you going to run around and brand women who have had abortions as "whores", etc..?

    So what consequences?

    Again, do you think the contents of women's uterus' are owned collectively so that she should be held to account for what she does to its contents?

    Can a woman not own her own reproductive organs?

    What do you expect me to do to such women LG? Beat them with a big stick to force them to stop? Spurn them as "whores"?

    Nope. Women get late term abortions all the time. And it is completely legal. So what is your point? What trouble will these women get in? Which parts of the world?

    And?

    Once that child is out, then yes, you are required to financially maintain it. But only once it is out. You have no legal obligations to it until it is outside of her womb.

    A zygote is not a person.

    Troll.

    A black person is a legal entity and thus, has equal rights. A zygote is not a legal entity and thus, has no rights.

    You are the one saying that women should not be allowed to determine their rights over their own reproductive organs. Not me.

    You are treating the woman like an incubator and denying her any say over her own body. In short, it is another form of rape.. the denial of a woman's right to consent to what happens to her own body.

    You said it to her. You are now in this thread saying that a woman cannot say 'her uterus'.. In short, I think you are a control freak and a misogynist to the point where you think a woman should have no rights over her own body once she conceives.. as if she is only there as a breeder..

    A woman who is, as you term it, "pro abortion" (when I have never once met a person who is pro-abortion in my life) is thus a "whore".

    Poor you. The great white male not able to force your beliefs on women.. The horror..

    They were very supportive and helpful when I decided to keep the two tape worms.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In fact, they saved our lives to ensure they were born and I was alive to see them afterwards.

    Once they are born, they become a person, a legal entity who is entitled to rights and to be kept from all harm.. While they are little parasites, loving little parasites who run their parents into the ground, they are born and thus, our children.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Having seen you post on this site LG, you are hardly innocent. So please, stop claiming you are.

    What have I done wrong?
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    bells I'm still waiting for your responce to my post
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    :bugeye:
    so the women who has dogs doesn't think of them as her children?



    but the basis for their case is a stage when technically they didn't exist, at least in your books
    if they are suing due to damages to their person when they didn't even exist, how is that possible?


    hence the actual people who actually existed got actually damaged ... not some non existent person


    If I beget offspring, then I certainly have commitments to the greater community (even if its only in terms of child support)

    getting implicated in ethical issues of course.

    I mean at a certain time, shooting natives was legal - this didn't mean that the perpetrators didn't face consequences from others didn't think it was ethically valid.


    depends whether they are reproducing or not - btw same holds with a man's genitals, or even a dog's in many cases for that matter

    Actually at the moment I am just asking whether you have ethical reservations about such scenarios.

    If you bothered to read previous posts with lucy (aside from the isolated instance of calling her a two faced whore in jest amidst her fury of ad homs ... which is something you seem to have grown very attached on for some reason), you would understand my opinions on the establishing legislation divorced from a foundation in social consensus.

    So yes or no?

    Do you have problems with mums doing heroin etc?
    (Just to be clear, I am not asking you for opinions on what should be done to prevent, stop or otherwise deal with pregnant mums using heroin - I am just asking whether you have any problems with it).

    I'm not sure which part of the world you are from, but in most parts, if you decide to have an abortion 3 days before its due, you will have quite a lot of red tape to surmount


    I can't pass this lame arsed excuse that its just me and my reproductive organs
    You said you have no issue on what happens if I dispose of the contents of my organs - that's all I did. I mean its not like I gave birth to the thing. Its got nothing to do with me, whether its in or out.



    neither is a black, according to some particular time, places and circumstances

    Please don't play coy.
    Legal terms are for the most part arbitrary.
    I mean an argument from yesteryear about whether blacks should receive civil liberties being dismissed on the grounds that it has no legal precedent is kinda piss weak, don't you think?

    If you simply want to play the game of being satisfied with whatever legal definitions are in vogue, you have no grounds for protest if it is deemed illegal or contesting for social change int hose places where it already is

    yet even a person can be awarded damages on account of their experiences as a zygote ... which kind of begs the question why the damages of abortion a zygote experiences doesn't read on the radar of the minds of persons like yourself


    much like there were protagonists saying similar things about the rights plantation owners had over their livestock and assets

    You are treating a person worse than an incubator, by sentencing them to death without the slightest inquiry going on beyond the whim of the person whom they are dependent on


    after she said several things to me

    thats generally how goading works, isn't it?
    (how long have you been here on sci again?)
    sure she can say it.
    My point is that its not a very apt term when you have another entity on the table... much like there a few unsound aspects at work in a plantation owners use of "my assets" in regards to the blacks he has in slavery

    Actually I would say that killing another for the sake of convenience is kind of a control freak thing
    the notion of being a mother (even if its only in regards to raising dogs) brings a few key issues of obligation to the discussion.

    IOW its a general notion that once one is awarded a position of being dependent on, it means one is also met by a few issues of obligation.
    In fact you could say that its a key aspect of making the transition to adult life.
    Worse I am afraid.
    A woman who is pro-abortion doesn't see any inherent distinction between a parasite and a child in the womb.
    Whores don't exclusively partake of such a degraded view.


    actually, having made the grade to an exterior womb existing type of living entity, I am not the victim of your beliefs


    yet they can be awarded damages on account of experiences before they were a (so-called) legal entity, so something else gives

    I've got news for you.
    They were on the make a whole 9 months before

    feel free to find any evidence to back up your claims

    If you judge Lucy's lead up as friendly banter, its not clear why you have problems with it



    I think you know
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2011
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    SCUM-E aesthetics

    Stupid people, stupid times, stupid places, and stupid circumstances.

    Look, one thing that puzzles me about the anti-abortion outlook is that the prohibitionists don't seem to acknowledge the fact that they have navels.

    This is actually a very important consideration that seems rather quite deliberately overlooked.

    Setting aside skin color, is there no difference between a human being existing in the world in general and an organism wholly dependent on the human being it leeches from?

    And, yes, that does seem a callous word—leeches.

    Is there no practical difference between being inside another person's body and existing outside that other person's body?

    By overlooking this consideration, the prohibitionists construct an either/or assertion, and in doing so argue to degrade the humanity of women in general—pregnant or otherwise.

    This is the simple reason why I apply a dryfoot policy. You make it to the world, welcome to the world. As long as you're squatting inside another person's body, though, that person gets a say.

    The more complex reasons, though, derive from the paucity and desperation of the prohibitionist argument, and also from its general futility.

    Who among us would apply for the job of Section Chief for Uterine and Menstrual Enforcment? You know, "Hello, my name is Bob Bobberson. I am the SCUM-E for the Seattle Police Department."

    Ye gads, can you imagine that in Britain? "Afternoon, ma'am. Time for the Pokies. Please lift your dress."

    And, of course, the prohibitionists naturally don't want to be viewed in such a light, but that's the problem with the rape exception. The prohibitionists are simply admitting that their whole argument is a matter of aesthetics.
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    One of the first chants that Buddhist novies in Thailand learn is the one on spreading goodwill to snakes.
    And apparently, it makes a world of difference in that the snakes rarely bite monks ...
    I presume this works for tapeworms too ...
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if you are prepared to set aside skin colour, why aren't you prepared to set aside your belly button?

    as mentioned several times earlier, declaring that one must be dependent in order to have access to justice issues simply empowers those already with power. In civilized society however, a primary function for justice is to protect those who are defenseless or dependent
    sure
    in the same sense, society tends to relegate everyone to a position of leeching of another body or individual.

    Of course the reason that we do tend to lobby societal powers to provide things for their members is because the word "dependence" evokes the notion of "the strong protecting the weak." Granted that in more barbaric cultures the word "dependent" tends to evoke the meaning "therefore you have no rights and i can do to you whatever I please".

    If you also don't have problems with late term abortion or pregnant mums smoking 6 packs a day or using crack, then no.

    On the contrary, this either/or policy is obvious arbitrary and absurd since there are obvious ethical considerations (when I say obvious, I mean even obvious for those who give the green light to abortion) for a mum who is taking drugs or requesting an abortion three days before it is due.
    admittedly the arguments of the all go abortion camp tend to be quite simple - pursuit of convenience at the expense of others who exist in a state of dependence - a marked similarity to the arguments of the cotton plantation owners of yesteryear I might add ...
    who amongst us would advocate passing extreme legislation that doesn't have the social foundation to be practical?

    I guess first we would have to imagine a society where parenthood is viewed as something more than a pastime for the rich with time on their hands

    Generally a discussion of ethics is based at reshaping views on a problem ... which then, if successful provides small societal changes in lieu of changing attitudes.

    There is always a tension in societies in determining to what degree something should be legislated against and to what degree it should merely be controlled by societal norms of acceptable behavior.

    IOW to suggest that a discussion of abortion be analyzed purely in terms of legislation is absurd since the hot seat it is contending for is aesthetics (since if a piece of legislation is going to avoid being a failure, it certainly must have a degree of "aesthetics" about it)
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2011
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Sorry, your question was lost in LG's drivel..

    I personally think tampering with birth control is bad regardless of who does it.

    Where did I say it was acceptable or "okay"?

    No idea.. She calls herself their 'mummy'. And refers to herself as that when she plays and takes them for walks and feeds them and cleans them and after them.. So is she a mother?

    But the damage done to their mother resulted in her being harmed and thus, not being able to have a healthy baby when she chooses to.

    They would have been born healthy but for the actions of the company which knowingly poisoned their mother and caused her irreversible damage so that she could never conceive a healthy child. Really, it's not that difficult.

    But they did exist. You have to exist to be able to sue.

    They were born. So they are human beings with equal rights. Get it yet?

    I'm not talking about the horror story of you breeding. I am talking about your balls and their contents. Do they belong to the community.

    Shooting a person is not legal or moral because you are harming a person. But abortion is legal. Why is that? Could it be because the zygote is not a person?

    Do you understand now?

    So what are the consequences of a woman having rights over the contents of her own uterus? What are the ethical issues of a woman having rights over her own body? Why do you think a woman should be denied rights to determine what happens to her body?

    So when does one determine that a woman or a man is reproducing and thus, make their reproductive organs community property? For example, I will assume that you are an adult male? Which means you are capable of reproducing. Does that mean that your balls belong to the greater community?

    Do you advocate the ownership of owning body parts of another person? Are you now advocating community ownership of women when they get to breeding age or when they become pregnant?

    Any person doing heroin is an issue because heroin is an illegal substance.

    As to what my reservations are to what women consume while pregnant.. Ermm.. It really is none of my business. I may not like it or I may find it bad to smoke 6 packs a day regardless of whether they are pregnant or not, but it is not for me to impose my beliefs upon others.

    Laws solely by social concensus is how hundreds of women were burned at the stake. Is that what you wish to go back to?

    Depends on the circumstances.

    And in many circumstances, it is legal.

    But it is just you and your reproductive organs. The only other person who has a say is your mate..

     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I had previously agreed with Glaucon on the point that brought this up, so I'll answer:

    If the pro-abortion camp would agree "Yes, abortion is killing, deal with it", then the anti-abortion camp would be challenged to show why killing is wrong.

    Interestingly, and counterintuitively perhaps, it is not self-evident to everyone that killing (at least killing humans) is wrong.


    Perhaps the pro-abortion camp does actually believe that killing other humans is wrong, but reconceptualizes abortion into "removing unwanted tissue" so as to preserve their sense of innoncence.
    (Note that many pro-abortionists are against the capital punishment, on the grounds that CP is killing, and killing is wrong.)


    I will argue that without recourse to at least karma, reincarnation and the conviction that life as it is usually lived is not as good as it was meant for living beings, esp. humans, and the conviction that there is a better, greater existence for us,
    it is impossible to show that killing is wrong.


    As long as we recognize that we have needs, interests and concerns that are in conflict with the needs, interests and concerns of other people and other beings,
    but are unable to contextualize this conflict in any other manner than "life is a struggle for survival" and "only the strong survive",
    this long there is a tendency to reconceptualize those conflicts in such a manner that grants us a sense of innoncence.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    For most of the contributors here that would be quite an advanced lesson, since most are having difficult with the basic notion of spreading goodwill to their own species ...

    (BTW similar precept there in vaisnavism eg BG 5,29 12,14 etc)
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Legal representation is generally guaranteed for people who for some reason or other are unable to take legal action themselves. Such as people who are in a coma, mentally unstable, prisoners, minors, victims of some crimes ...

    Not being able to take legal action oneself does not mean one does not exist.



    The point is that if your reproductive organs would really be yours, then you would have full control over them.

    You would not have to rely on contraceptives when you didn't want to conceive, nor on fertility treatments when you'd have trouble conceiving; where you live, what you eat, what you do would have no bearing on the functionality of your reproductive organs.
    But as we all know, these things don't work this way.


    It is not about "men" or "the state" or "society" owning any woman's uterus.

    It's about understanding that our bodies are only provisionally ours.
     
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    There is really no justification.
    This is a social issue in America not a moral issue. American laws stand as they are to protect rights not morality. Under this ideal the rights of a person that can't recognize their own right will always be considered a lesser concerns. There is nothing moral about.

    It's means of escaping responsibility for loose behavior.

    Back when Children were valuable (in some nations they still are) taking a child's life was like taking away their pension. They were a work force as well. Now children are prevented from working, we have too many of them they generate crime, become a burden on the Government and Educational system. It's within Americas best self interest to remove the excess. After all they will eventually die anyway.
     

Share This Page