Happy New Year!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Paging Ayn Rand.
I like your thinking Tomu. If your a fence sitter then what do you do?
edited 16th Jan '11 3:44:40 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
PARTY HARD!!!!
I've already put forward the stance based on the clump of cells deal and the idea of a fetus being on the road to humanity, so I'll eliminate that argument as per the rules, and think on a response.
I'll be back in a while after I've thought a bit.
edited 16th Jan '11 3:45:24 PM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD
Okay hows this: consensual sex is tactile permission.I think you mean tacit permission *. And you're wrong, not least because the vast majority of sex acts do not result in pregnancy. Even in the ideal scenario of a young, healthy, heterosexual couple who have frequent unprotected sex, there is still only a 28% chance per month that pregnancy will result. Pregnancy is an exceptional outcome.
It's like saying that crossing the street on foot is giving tacit permission for someone to hit you with their car. Not exactly like it, because the odds are different, but in the same ballpark.
Well there goes the welfare state! Property is created through the work of one's body. So by your logic, no person has the right to take that made by the body of another and use it for sustenance without the second person's permission.External objects created using the body are not the body itself. Try again, puppy.
Funny, most of the sincere "taxation is theft" people are fervently against abortion rights.
edited 16th Jan '11 3:51:00 PM by Karalora
Anon, the basic axiom is "The clump of cells is not a person." Even if it'll become a person, because it's not a person, it doesn't have the properties of having "rights." There's nothing to be violated in that sense.
Though I am not pro-life, devil's advocate similar to Anon's position:
Because that clump of cells will eventually become a baby, and it is immoral to deprive that baby of life, it is immoral to kill the clump of cells now because it will deprive the future baby of life.
Obvious counterargument is that it's not a baby yet so there's no reason to treat it like a baby yet.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
You can't deprive something of something if said something doesn't exist.
Things that don't exist do not have properties. Thus, they cannot have properties added to them or taken away from them.
edited 16th Jan '11 3:57:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Happy New Year!
I think you mean tacit permission. And you're wrong, not least because the vast majority of sex acts do not result in pregnancy. Even in the ideal scenario of a young, healthy, heterosexual couple who have frequent unprotected sex, there is still only a 28% chance per month that pregnancy will result. Pregnancy is an exceptional outcome.
It's like saying that crossing the street on foot is giving tacit permission for someone to hit you with their car. Not exactly like it, because the odds are different, but in the same ballpark.edited 16th Jan '11 3:59:03 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
NOT THE BEES
And you're wrong, not least because the vast majority of sex acts do not result in pregnancy. Even in the ideal scenario of a young, healthy, heterosexual couple who have frequent unprotected sex, there is still only a 28% chance per month that pregnancy will result. Pregnancy is an exceptional outcome. It's not exceptional when you're looking at the immense sample spaces. Not the majority, sure, but by no means exceptional.
Rebuttal: But if your driving the car and you hit some one are you not obligated to provide assistance? you choose to drive after all.So...getting pregnant is like hitting someone with your car? That calls to mind people running over pedestrians on purpose so that they'll can phone the paramedics and chalk it up as a good deed, the way people deliberately get pregnant so they can nurture a child. Not the image I think you were going for.
It's not exceptional when you're looking at the immense sample spaces. Not the majority, sure, but by no means exceptional.If an outcome is not the rule, then by definition it is the (or an) exception. That's what "exception" means; it means "something that doesn't usually happen."
edited 16th Jan '11 4:02:08 PM by Karalora
NOT THE BEES
If an outcome is not the rule, then by definition it is the (or an) exception. That's what "exception" means; it means "something that doesn't usually happen." From the statistics I'm looking at right now, 43% of women will have at least one abortion in their lives, and 47% of them are repeat customers.
How much of an exception is this again?
edited 16th Jan '11 4:03:33 PM by Pykrete
PARTY HARD!!!!
Things that don't exist do not have properties. Thus, they cannot have properties added to them or taken away from them. Hmmm, why do I feel the urge to bring up quantum mechanics...
Ah well, let's see.
What if that non-existent-something's presence has been acknowledged? Doesn't it exist already, at least in one sense?
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD
Happy New Year!
So...getting pregnant is like hitting someone with your car? That calls to mind people running over pedestrians on purpose so that they'll can phone the paramedics and chalk it up as a good deed, the way people deliberately get pregnant so they can nurture a child. Not the image I think you were going for.
^^Only in the sense that Hitler's Legacy is Hitler. I have no idea why I threw Hitler in here, as Hitler really has nothing to do with it, and I'm not even comparing anyone to Hitler...
That is to say, just because we attribute certain elements to a person, that doesn't mean that person exists at the point in time we're referring to. Particularly because it's not even known if that person will ever exist-after all, what if there's a miscarriage?
edited 16th Jan '11 4:10:26 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
So you're saying...what? Since if you keep on having sex, you're likely to get pregnant at least once, every single sex act counts as tacit permission? No, that doesn't follow.
Rebuttal: Both are activities that come with the risk that a human being will be depended on you to sustain life. Same logic applies.Rebuttal to the rebuttal: If you hit someone with your car, summon the paramedics, and provide first aid in the meantime, and the victim dies anyway, you are on the hook for vehicular manslaughter. If the same logic applies, then a woman who becomes pregnant by accident and miscarries should be on the hook for...something. Reckless endangerment, maybe. But as the law currently stands, she is not on the hook. Are you arguing that she should be?
edited 16th Jan '11 4:16:46 PM by Karalora
I dunno. Apparently we're more upset about conservative views than homicidal ones.Antinatalist views, OTOH, are relatively compatible with a pro-choice stance. There are pro-choicers who would agree that, for instance, there are contexts where a child is better off not being born. Our main point of disagreement is merely which contexts those happen to be. Political debate thrives on bigger disagreements than that.
I think he's arguing from Strict Liability.
Even if sex counted as permission to let the fetus use your womb, if you give permission to someone to use your house you can kick them out again any time you want.
Shouldn't it be even more so if we're talking about your actual body, rather than your house?
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Sex is a 9 month lease?
Happy New Year!
Yes. Whether you hope into bed or hope into the drivers seat. You knew the risks. You have a responsibility.
edited 16th Jan '11 4:18:14 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
^^^ Except by that logic, "evicting" a bad tenant of the body (unwanted child for instance) is akin to "evicting" a bad tenant of the home via stabbing him/her in the ribs with a knife and dumping the body into a dumpster.
The law does not allow or excuse the latter so it's poor logic to apply to the former.
edited 16th Jan '11 4:18:10 PM by MajorTom
So vacuum aspiration or inducing labor is A-OK?
edited 16th Jan '11 4:21:28 PM by Karalora
Yeah. I mean, my earlier challenge really was intended to show that, if you accept the other person's axiom, there's not really anywhere else to go-UNLESS of course you can, say, create a situation where a fetus could be removed from the womb and risen in a tube or something like that.
Happy New Year!
No it's more like kicking someone out in freezing winter. You don't kill him the icy cold does. does that stand up in court?
edited 16th Jan '11 4:22:53 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
They should have shelters for that kind of thing.
Rott, the state is not a living organism.
We are not the zerg.
Also, no one is allowed to act as a rebuttal unless they can successfully argue their position from the other person's point of view or they're playing devil's advocate and agree with the position they're arguing against.
You don't have to play by my rules, obviously (they're arbitrary and I have no authority) but I think we'll get a lot further into intelligent debate if we do.
edited 16th Jan '11 3:42:25 PM by TheyCallMeTomu