no more abortions!

[matts5.0]

I'm just curious. So what do you consider life, whats the difference between life, and being alive.


I'm not 100% against abortion either! but 20 weeks, yeah, get your shit together, you had plenty of time to figure shit out or make other options.

[racrguy]

No, it doesn't. At least, it doesn't unless you're attempting to make an appeal to emotion.

I'm pretty sure I know what angle he's going for, let's see if it plays out how I think it will.

[Maddhattter]

Not a strawman.

Yes it is.

Your hangup is that the 'fetus' is not viable and incapable of sustaining itself so therefore it is not a baby and thus, viable for abortion. Summed it up?

Actually, the point he's making is a fetus isn't a baby because it isn't self sustaining or viable. IF that is the measuring stick, anyone not internally sustaining you could make the argument that they are eligible for late term abortion. We're really just negotiating the time frame in which I can kill someone legally at this point.

Repeating a strawman does not make it any less of one.

Does it matter?

No, it doesn't. At least, it doesn't unless you're attempting to make an appeal to emotion.

[Forever_frost]

Does it matter?



Yeah, you're building a strawman by attacking an argument he isn't making in regards to people on life support.

Actually, the point he's making is a fetus isn't a baby because it isn't self sustaining or viable. IF that is the measuring stick, anyone not internally sustaining you could make the argument that they are eligible for late term abortion. We're really just negotiating the time frame in which I can kill someone legally at this point.

[racrguy]

Do you have kids?

Does it matter?

Not a strawman. Your hangup is that the 'fetus' is not viable and incapable of sustaining itself so therefore it is not a baby and thus, viable for abortion. Summed it up?

Yeah, you're building a strawman by attacking an argument he isn't making in regards to people on life support.

[Forever_frost]

Not a strawman. Your hangup is that the 'fetus' is not viable and incapable of sustaining itself so therefore it is not a baby and thus, viable for abortion. Summed it up?

[Maddhattter]

So survival without an external support system is your definition? Remind me why I can't go into ICU with a DeWalt and just start drilling into skulls because they are on breathing machines, some need blood infusions (blood from external source) and then you have the dialysis wing where they need an external system to cleanse their blood or they die. Are they viable?

When you're not creating a strawman of my position, I'll be happy to continue the discussion.

You don't see the flaws in your thinking?

No. Nor have you demonstrated any.

[matts5.0]

That's fascinating. Tell me more.

Do you have kids?

[racrguy]

Not really. It seems to be the hangup is on when the baby is viable and can maintain their own internal systems. Following this, it would make anyone on any form of life support eligible for abortion as they are unable to be viable without outside assistance

That's fascinating. Tell me more.

[Forever_frost]

I only see flaws in your thinking, but even if they were pointed out to you right now, nothing would change on your part.

Not really. It seems to be the hangup is on when the baby is viable and can maintain their own internal systems. Following this, it would make anyone on any form of life support eligible for abortion as they are unable to be viable without outside assistance

[racrguy]

So survival without an external support system is your definition? Remind me why I can't go into ICU with a DeWalt and just start drilling into skulls because they are on breathing machines, some need blood infusions (blood from external source) and then you have the dialysis wing where they need an external system to cleanse their blood or they die. Are they viable?

You don't see the flaws in your thinking?

I only see flaws in your thinking, but even if they were pointed out to you right now, nothing would change on your part.

[Forever_frost]

Once a fetus is viable, i.e. it can survive outside the womb, then terminating the pregnancy is murder. Until that point, the mother is wholly within her rights to withhold biological functions, even if it means the death of the fetus. The same way you can withhold, or even revoke (once permission is given, of course), access to your biological functions regardless of whether the other person can survive without it or not.

So survival without an external support system is your definition? Remind me why I can't go into ICU with a DeWalt and just start drilling into skulls because they are on breathing machines, some need blood infusions (blood from external source) and then you have the dialysis wing where they need an external system to cleanse their blood or they die. Are they viable?

You don't see the flaws in your thinking?

[Maddhattter]

The only distinction is the woman deciding to kill the child versus someone else. Now if you're all for parents having authority when to kill their kids, we can discuss that as I'm sure there's quite a bit to cover

Once a fetus is viable, i.e. it can survive outside the womb, then terminating the pregnancy is murder. Until that point, the mother is wholly within her rights to withhold biological functions, even if it means the death of the fetus. The same way you can withhold, or even revoke (once permission is given, of course), access to your biological functions regardless of whether the other person can survive without it or not.

[Maddhattter]

Funny we already have laws on the books defining what a baby is.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07

If you shoot a pregnant woman and kill the baby, that's then murder or manslaughter.

A person trying to commit suicide is charged with a Class C misdemeanor or jail time.

BUT, aiding or giving permission to kill an unborn "individual", as defined by the state, is a OK.

Right...

"Individuals" don't have rights. "Person"s do.

[Maddhattter]

By 'allowing a woman to maintain bodily integrity', you're invading the bodily integrity of another in the most invasive way.

No, your not.

A right extends only as far as it does not infringe on the right of another.

Another person, I agree.

So a fetus only becomes a baby at birth? Or is there a point between conception and birth?

Yep. However, I'd argue that it gains personhood once it can survive outside of the womb.

Your analogy fails in that for it to be fair, for me to maintain control over my kidney I be allowed to drive a pike into the skull of the person on life support and not only kill them but desecrate their body afterwards or by injecting them with a toxic batch of chemicals that is intended to kill them.

No, it doesn't. It's only fair if, in my analogy, someone has taken use of your kidney without your permission, and the removal of your kidney would kill them. In that case, it would still be within your rights to reclaim your kidney, even if it would kill the person who currently has it.

If we're talking the life of the mother, I'm good with that discussion but having one just because it's inconvenient to have a baby even though the way to stop having kids unexpectedly is so simple? Fuck no. Every time I get laid, I don't have a right to wait for a bit before killing someone because their existence is an inconvenience.

Fairly decent strawman. The woman has a right to bodily integrity vs something that has usurped her bodily functions without her consent regardless of whether it is convenient to her or medically necessary.

Why is it a baby if I punch a woman in the gut and force her to miscarriage but a fetus if she wants to kill it?

Why is it illegal graffiti if I paint your house, but perfectly legal if you paint it? The answer's the same.

Why baby showers when in your own words, it's not a baby, it's a fetus?

Why call an idea you have a theory when it's actually a hypothesis? Colloquial language vs medical/scientific terminology. To argue that the layman uses the term in a way that actual medical/scientific professionals don't is not an argument in anyone's favor.

No, it's no ploy for an emotional response. For that I could provide pictures and descriptions. I'm using what is actually happening.

I'm not arguing that what you described is not actually happening. It just bears no relevance to the conversation at hand. The description of the event does not change the rights of the mother vs the invading/unwanted fetus' commendation of the mother's biological integrity, i.e. the fetus has no right to the mother's body. Describing one of the ways an abortion is performed (explicitly using the most rare method) adds nothing to the discussion except an emotional response which has no rational value.

I agree. Next time you meet a woman who has had a miscarriage you should tell her to fucking get over it. Or is this just another liberal double standard to add to a long list of double standards?

If I was expecting to have a rational discussion with her, I would tell her that her emotional responses have no rational value. Of course, I would never expect to have a rational conversation with someone (mother or father) who had just experienced a miscarriage. It's not that they are not allowed their emotional responses, it's just they have no rational value. Just like Treyvon's mother has every right to have an emotional response over her son's death. That doesn't make her response carry any rational value.

So, in a nutshell, the mother can have her emotional response. It'll just have no rational value so I would never bother attempting to have a rational conversation.

If I didn't know she had a miscarriage and attempted to have a rational conversation? I'd tell her the same thing I just told Frost. After all, as far as I know, Frost my have had a child that was miscarried. I don't know, and if he had, it would add no weight to his position.