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

Bells you didn't, but where a women has a remidy for that, legally its "suck it up" for a Guy. Even the government will chase him for money for her

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me make it easy for you .... do you think she uses the title "mummy" because she adopts the dependent provider like role that a mother has with children or do you think that she uses the title "mummy" because she is convinced she is the biological parent of the dogs?

yet it is the nonexistent person who is receiving payment for damages on top of whatever the mother is receiving.

who's talking about her never conceiving a healthy child? - let me give you an example - a friend of my parents was picking tomatoes on a farm while a few months pregnant (ie carrying a fertilized egg, in your language). It got crop dusted with something (probably a pesticide) that gave her child (as she realized at the time of birth) some severe deformities - she went on to have other children who were quite healthy. Anyways, to cut a long story short, the child was awarded a payment for damages due to experiences it sustained as a "fertilized egg".

Now by your logic, a mother (you've got a host of disingenuous terms for a child in the womb , eg - fertilized egg, zygote, tissue, etc, but none for "mother" so we will ride with it for the time being) can abort the child on account of it not being due any valid experience to warrant the host of justice/rights issues that we award in our magnanimous society. Yet at the same time, the exact same zygote/fertilized egg/tissue/child in the womb can be awarded damages on account of its experiences. IOW even though it is in a state of dependence, its independence (the independence that anything has, simply on the merit of its existence) has has been interfered with, hence there is a justice issue at stake.

IOW its not just a case of woman and her reproductive organs or even a woman and her reproductive organs and a company.
Clearly there is a third party interest at stake here.

if they didn't exist at the time of the experience, what exactly is their basis for pursuing legal/justice channels?

so if the poisoning killed them instead of merely deforming them, there would be no justice issues at stake?

will the irony never end?

well that's what I am talking about - if I am not careful what i do with the contents of my balls, then yes, not only will I owe something to the community but I will be forced to honor that commitment

The reason that it was legal to shoot a black man was because they were also similarly relegated to the state of not being a "person" (by use of a similar language of unconsciousness)

Do you understand now?

Similar to the consequences of a plantation owner not having rights over his "assets" .. or an examination of the ethical issues of a plantation owner having rights over their own "assets" ... or asking the question why do you think a plantation owner should be denied rights to determine what happens to their "assets" .... IOW in all cases, a reexamination of the term "assets" (minus the language of unconsciousness of course) provides a different scenario than a mere examination of a plantation owner and their "assets"

when there is a result of course
I mean even in terms of our current standard, a man doesn't get off the hook if a woman arrives with a new born and the man says its got nothing to do with him since the last time he saw her was about 9 months ago.

depends what results ensue of course

Perhaps people were at similar loggerheads a few hundred years ago when outraged plantation owners were questioning whether their draft mules or barns would also receive human rights

so legalization is the only problem you have with pregnant mums shooting up on a regular basis?

So if you have a daughter who grows up and becomes pregnant and she lights up 6 packs a day, you just say "whatever makes you feel happy honey"?

probably explains why it was legal ( no doubt they also had a similar language of unconsciousness running rife )

Go back to?
we are still there

Only an idiotic regime would attempt to establish legislation completely divorced from societal support (or at least tolerance)

98 out of 154 of the worlds 154 most populous countries is a majority

Even then, 2 of the states of australia requires some sort of criteria be met, so its not as if the whole country is on par with the human rights standard of china

and the family justice commission (regardless of what you or your mate think in some cases) ...

well that would be your argument, wouldn't it?

The reason I use the black man argument is because at a particular time, their being was also defined solely in terms of a man's "assets"

... I mean its not like plantation owners also didn't have their issues of freedom and self determination, yes?

the problem is that in your quest for freedom you are trampling on the freedom of another - IOW for as long as you attempt to relegate the discussion of abortion purely in terms of "my uterus", I will be drawing the analogy of a plantation discussing slavery purely in terms of "my assets".

the persons who you decree as dispensable because they exist in a relationship of dependence with the mother of course

try your last few posts on this thread

Since she didn't respond to previous requests to drop the goading, I simply played her game ... along with the tag that she please continue to insult my genealogy.

Guess she wasn't sharp enough to see it as an attempt to deflate her goading.
You too for that matter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW you called me a fucking retard didn't you?

In my opinion, you are a "fucking retard".

If you are getting sick of the "my asset" argument of the plantation owner you had better drop the "my uterus" argument for abortion

Unfortunately, no.

Once one has adopted a position of being obligated (by whatever means) , one can't drop out of that obligation merely by choosing. It tends to infringe on the justice issues of whom one is obligated to.

Hence it becomes a technical issue as to what constitutes being obligated and how - for instance there is a radical distinction in the obligations of a plantation owner when a worker is designated a slave one year and an employee the next.

If you can in a direct way label someone a misogynist, I wouldn't have thought the process would be so alien to you.

It was a response to your idiotic banter about equating pregnancy with hosting a parasite

A child in the womb is not a person

The problem is that its not just the parents receiving damages for personal injury ... I mean that's generally how personal injury works isn't it? A person is present in a particular situation to get injured, yes?

lucky for them

So she equates spiritual advancement with constipation, declares that my genitals are abscessed, asserts that I am a female dog on heat because I support the views of another poster and prides herself on being able to attack by anus with red hot pincers ... and I respond by suggesting she accepts money for sex (in a half hearted way by requesting her to also please continue with the insults), and I am stepping over the line

:bugeye:


I mean .... seriously

(BTW you calling me a fucking retard and a misogynist crossed the line)

As I said, I think you know

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why are you forcing an opinion on me that is not mine?

 

I think this is an accurate observation.


Note how in practice, the law is not about the truth, but about proving or disproving a charge that was made.

 

The analogy with the slaves and slave owners is this:
In your view,
an unborn child is to its mother
like a slave is a to a slave owner.

Slave owners did not think their slaves had human rights.
In your view, a pregnant woman does not think her unborn child has human rights.

In some countries, if a pregnant woman is murdered, this counts as a double homicide.

It's interesting - a pregnant woman can legally kill her child while it is in her womb, but if someone else does it, that person gets charged with homicide ...

Provide evidence or philosophical reasoning that a person is their body.

 

You're on good form today Signal.
I like it.


jan.

 

Bells there is one example of joint ownership by a partnership of peoples bodies
That is the legislation (not sure what ended up happerning with it) which was proposed in SA to require consent of a female partner before you get a vecectomy. The justification was that both partners have an intrest in reproduction and therefore both should have a say in its permanent prevention.

 

That is the only way to get at the truth. How else are you going to find the truth except through investigation and proving and disproving charges?

Saquist observation is flawed. There is no universal standard for what is moral save what society and culture deems it at any given time. It was considered immoral for two men to have sex with each other now same sex unions are accepted. Laws follow morality. Contemporary morality dictates that no ones individual beliefs should infringe on the freedoms of another. This is why same sex unions are becoming more and more protected under the law and why abortions are upheld under the law. Even the pope had to agree to change his stance on the use of condoms because of societal changes, like the introduction of AIDS as a disease. The standards governing morality does not easily change within a religion but as we can see it does shift with the times and will continue to do so in the future.

 

In practice, the law is not about finding out the truth about what happened.

If, for example, a person murders someone, but is never charged with murder, they are not tried and not sentenced for murder.

Numerous crimes happen, but when no charges are made, there are no trials and no punishments.

If the law would actually be about the truth, then the law enforcement would see to it that all crimes be persecuted.

This is a meta-ethical stance that is also subject to "what society and culture deems moral at any given time".

There are, for example, societies/cultures in which morality is seen as something that is above the current state of a society/culture.

 

How do you know the truth if you don't know what happened? How are you to find the truth without finding out what happened? All crimes that are deemed crimes by society that can be proven in court is prosecuted as a crime. You're speaking gooblygook.

And on what do these cultures and societies base their standards of morality? You have to name these cultures and what standards have never fluctuated through time. No culture or society is fixed without any changes.

 

lg
can you make something out of this?
there might be some relevance.....

On page 38 of this book appears one of the most remarkable photographs I have seen. It shows a young mother playing an energetic game (tag, perhaps, or pig-in-the-middle) with her three children, two girls and a boy. There are four lively, happy people in the photograph, but only six arms and six legs, for the two girls share a body. Between them they have two legs and two arms, but above a single pair of shoulders there are two necks, two heads, two smiling faces. One of Us is about conjoined twins, and its starting point is the conviction that often such twins should be thought of as two people inhabiting one body, not as two people inhabiting two not-yet-separated bodies. Clearly Abigail and Brittany Hensel (the six-year-olds to whose photograph I keep returning) can never be separated (though they do have two hearts); nor need they be, for they have a fit and healthy body, in which they can do all the things people normally do, except, of course, get away from each other.​

Separating Gracie and Rosie

Conjoined Twins, Embodied Personhood, and Surgical Separation

 

Oh, I thought that referred to my substance (ab)use - specifically the catnip and oven cleaner.

 

It's not interesting, it's false. They don't. Not for a three month embryo, anyway. No culture in history has ever treated a three month embryo as a person, as an actual full status human being, in any context except in forbidding abortion.

I don't think that's anyone's view, let alone Bell's. So your analogy is purely hypothetical - if anyone actually thought like that, it might be up for discussion, but no one does, so it isn't.

I seriously doubt, for example, that a typical slave owning woman would grant womb residence privileges to her slaves as a perk of their status.

 

Here's another really bright anti-choicer who really really loves 'life':

'Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican from Marietta, Georgia, has introduced a bill that would criminalize miscarriages, making abortion and miscarriage -- or "prenatal murder" in the language of the bill -- potentially punishable by death.'

Phillips notes that last year Franklin -- a graduate of Covenant College who's served in the Georgia House since 1997 -- proposed a law that would reclassify victims of domestic violence as "accusers."

Franklin's online bio also states that he "has been called 'the conscience of the Republican Caucus' because he believes that civil government should return to its biblically and constitutionally defined role.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDZ2FsYXdtYWtlcmNs

Punishable by death

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I love these types because they highlight just how backward and the anti-choice camp really is, an american version of the Taliban, its like they're their own worst enemy.

 

I believe Signal was expalining to Bells the analogy that LG was discussing in his posts so what's your non-sequitur drivel about?

 

The maxim is: A person is innocent until proven guilty.

In practice, the law is not about the truth, but about what can be proven.

Societies/cultures that centrally rely on religion are examples of societies/cultures that see morality as something that is above the current state of a society/culture.

But if you insist on your particular meta-ethical stance, then you won't see it that way.

 

Yes, this is what I was doing ...

 

As long as you insist in a caricature of what a particular person's reservations about abortion are, there cannot be much of a sensible discussion with you on the topic.