Abortion and Women's Rights

[John V]

I've already explained all of this to you.

You tried to justify it by saying that humans must eat meat to survive. I noted that that's not true.

Good. Now you can answer why you think you have the authority to make decisions for women and deny them their right of choice when you can't justify the lines you've drawn.

Same justification you use to do the same.

Beyond the fact that this isn't true, I provided a lengthy and thoughtful description of why self-awareness is a clear line for me, I'm not the one who seeks to deny women the right of choice.

For you? You would deny women the right to choice past 21 weeks, because it it's a clear line for you? Conception is a clear line for me.

Can you name for me any women who WANT to get an abortion after week 21?

There are still a few doctors in the U.S. who perform third trimester abortions, so some women do want them.

Can you name for me any "pro-choice" advocates who think late term (3rd trimester) abortions should be on demand?

Yes, I gave a link to an article by a true pro-choice advocate who believes you should drop the buts and just be pro-choice.

I've also answered that question as well. Person A's right to life trumping Person B's right to choice, except where Person B's life is also in danger. Person A doesn't exist prior to the brain development that occurs after week 21.

You arbitrarily choose brain activity as the cutoff. Why should your beliefs prohibit a woman from getting an abortion after you say that the baby is alive? What if she believes differently? I thought the pro-choice mantra was that this should be between the woman and her doctor. You apparently disagree.

Now, if you're done with the red herring and tu quoque evasion tactics, let's hear why you think you're justified in forcing your personal opinions on others.

The same reason you feel justified in doing the same. We both have the same overall position on the argument. We only disagree on the point at which life starts.

---

You've given me a good and thoughtful counter argument, advocating viability instead of self-awareness as the standard for when "life", in the moral sense of the word, begins.

Viability has bigger problems.

Conceptually, does it make sense that a woman be forced to keep a baby inside her body because it could probably survive outside her body?

Also, viability is affected by technology. As you look forward to a time with AI, consider the situation if we become able to grow (so to speak) a baby from conception outside of the womb. Based on a viability standard, abortion should then be outlawed.

[DeistPaladin]

Since I'm tired of this run around, I'll just note that you can't justify why you are justified in forcing what you admit are just your personal opinions on others to make decisions for them. You have done nothing in this debate but utilize Red Herring and Tu Quoque evasion tactics as well as employed dishonest semantics to further obfuscate rather than clarify. You have ignored my lengthy posts on self-awareness and why this is a factor in determining moral obligations and keep repeating the "life begins at conception" mantra, pretending this is somehow an equivalent argument.

And as if all this weren't bad enough, you confused Star Trek and Star Wars.

So I'm content at this point to agree to disagree, confident that you have been fully exposed as a sanctimonious, busy-body, dishonest, bullying dickhead.

[John V]

Since I'm tired of this run around, I'll just note that you can't justify why you are justified in forcing what you admit are just your personal opinions on others to make decisions for them.

And I'll just note that you do the same. Writing a few paragraphs on your reasoning does not justify your position. It's still just your opinion. That's why I don't bother writing about my position. It will still be just my opinion.

You have done nothing in this debate but utilize Red Herring and Tu Quoque evasion tactics as well as employed dishonest semantics to further obfuscate rather than clarify. You have ignored my lengthy posts on self-awareness and why this is a factor in determining moral obligations and keep repeating the "life begins at conception" mantra, pretending this is somehow an equivalent argument.

I haven't ignored your posts on self-awareness, I've shown multiple problems that result from your position. Not that this is specific to your position, I've acknowledged that all definitions of personhood or beginning of life run into problems. I'm OK with that, but you for some reason think that you've justified your opinion and can dictate the rights of women because you wrote a lengthy post and inserted a Star Trek clip.

And as if all this weren't bad enough, you confused Star Trek and Star Wars.

Actually I did that on purpose to tick you off, and was disappointed when you didn't say anything. I'm now pleased to hear that you noticed. I didn't watch your clip (that's a policy of mine), but I do recall that episode (vaguely) from back when it originally aired. I recall Number Two (again intentional) hitting an off button on Data's back.

So I'm content at this point to agree to disagree, confident that you have been fully exposed as a sanctimonious, busy-body, dishonest, bullying dickhead.

I'm sure that's how the majority see it just due to bias. If they're objective, they'll note that you have the same position regarding rights to abortion as I do, you just have a different opinion (yes, despite your "lengthy" explanation it's still just an opinion) on when life starts.

[Losty]

Viability has bigger problems.

No it does not

Conceptually, does it make sense that a woman be forced to keep a baby inside her body because it could probably survive outside her body?

Conceptually, does it make sense to force you to donate a kidney to someone who has a working kidney? Conceptually, does it make sense to force you to donate blood to someone who can survive without your blood? No.
A person's right to their own body trumps your right to live. So it's only obvious that a person's right to their own body trumps your (non-existent) right to hang out in their body without their permission.

Also, viability is affected by technology. As you look forward to a time with AI, consider the situation if we become able to grow (so to speak) a baby from conception outside of the womb. Based on a viability standard, abortion should then be outlawed.

Listen, we don't plan laws for what ifs of the future. We plan laws for now. In the future laws can and will be adjusted accordingly. You say consider a situation where a fetus is viable from the point of conception, I say consider a situation where accidental conception is not possible and people only conceive when they wish to, Beccs (I love you Beccs so I hope you don't mind being in my example ) says consider a situation where people ride hover boards to work and we discover that dolphins are actually more intelligent than us and give them personhood status. None of us has any ground to stand on because we don't base laws on what could maybe change one day in the future.

[John V]

Conceptually, does it make sense to force you to donate a kidney to someone who has a working kidney? Conceptually, does it make sense to force you to donate blood to someone who can survive without your blood? No.
A person's right to their own body trumps your right to live. So it's only obvious that a person's right to their own body trumps your (non-existent) right to hang out in their body without their permission.

You prove it yourself. If the mother's right to her own body trumps the baby's right to live, then viability is not relevant.

Listen, we don't plan laws for what ifs of the future. We plan laws for now. In the future laws can and will be adjusted accordingly. You say consider a situation where a fetus is viable from the point of conception, I say consider a situation where accidental conception is not possible and people only conceive when they wish to, Beccs (I love you Beccs so I hope you don't mind being in my example ) says consider a situation where people ride hover boards to work and we discover that dolphins are actually more intelligent than us and give them personhood status. None of us has any ground to stand on because we don't base laws on what could maybe change one day in the future.

I agree, but this was directed at DP who was making a big deal about me not replying to the Star Trek thing for awhile.

[DeistPaladin]

And I'll just note that you do the same. Writing a few paragraphs on your reasoning does not justify your position. It's still just your opinion. That's why I don't bother writing about my position. It will still be just my opinion.

I won't belabor this discussion except to point out that whenever the burden of proof is on you and all you can offer is "oh yeah, well, what about what you believe, huh?", it's a tacit admission you have failed to meet the burden of proof and therefore have lost the argument.

[Losty]

I wonder what pro-lifers would argue if we just induce labor instead of abortions.

[John V]

I won't belabor this discussion

How many times are you going to quit it?

except to point out that whenever the burden of proof is on you and all you can offer is "oh yeah, well, what about what you believe, huh?", it's a tacit admission you have failed to meet the burden of proof and therefore have lost the argument.

There's no burden of proof regarding opinions. If you say chocolate's best but I say black raspberry is better, I don't need to prove it - it's just an opinion.

---

No I just happen to be of the opinion that a woman should have the right to have induced labor at any point after viability.

That's interesting. For what purpose?

[DeistPaladin]

There's no burden of proof regarding opinions. If you say chocolate's best but I say black raspberry is better, I don't need to prove it - it's just an opinion.

But when you seek to force your opinion on others, whether by legislation or by personal action, the burden of proof *IS* on you to show there is good cause to do so.

I know I only said that about a dozen times on this thread so here it is again.

You have not done this.

You have admitted that you can't do this.

Ergo: You lose.

[Losty]

No I just happen to be of the opinion that a woman should have the right to have induced labor at any point after viability.

That's interesting. For what purpose?

For the same purpose as having an abortion. She doesn't want the fetus in her body.