Abortion- "It is her body!" But is it?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Ritter, Sep 27, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crcata

    Crcata Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've already pointed out my argument multiple times in this thread. An argument that follows reason and logic to its natural conclusion. The failed arguments that I've seen try to counter are inherently flawed, and go against anything logical as I have already pointed out with the "self defense" argument which is so illogical it's laughable. But instead of acknowledge thier entire basis for forming thier opinion was false they seek out other, just as ridiculous arguments to try to avoid having to face the objective truth that they are wrong.

    It's murder. <Mod Edit>
     
  2. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Food for thought- an English town "aborted" 600 seagulls last year, was it good or bad?

    [​IMG]
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Desperation post :)


    I think you have to look up the definition of "abortion"........see, it comes before birth and the seagulls that you think relevant :roll: were born.
     
  4. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    For context, I recall your earlier post:
    You were implying that the unborn organism (with a living body and no active mind) is different from a brain-dead patient (with a living body and no active mind). The only difference is that the unborn organism is a potential person and the brain-dead patient is a former person. Neither of them is an actual person, so neither of them is in possession of the living human body. In the case of the unborn, the pregnant woman is the only person in possession of the body. In the case of the brain-dead patient the hospital or nearest relative might be considered in possession of the living body. You are only in possession of your living body after your mind is activated and before your mind is destroyed. The fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus is like the seed of the tree. The acorn is a potential tree, but not an actual tree. The zef is a potential person, but not an actual person.

    The "self-defense" argument applies if pro-life legislators ever decided to arbitrarily declare that person-hood begins at conception. Person-hood would allow us to treat the zygote as an independent entity acting to satisfy its own needs (much like the eggs of the Guinea Worm).
     
  5. Crcata

    Crcata Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The self defense argument is illogical as I have already pointed out. This is objective fact.

    There is a significant difference from a brain dead individual who may never "come back" and a life in a womb that will in almost every situation gain conciousness in 9 months. So to purposefully kill that life to prevent it from ever gaining conciousness is murder. This is also objective truth.

    To disagree is to support murder.
     
  6. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I already covered that "significant difference" and it is just the difference between being a "potential person" and a "former person."

    If your claim is that it is murder to prevent a person from ever gaining consciousness then you could be committing murder every time you fail to have coitus with your partner. If you take action to avoid combining a specific living sperm with a specific living egg, you have prevented a unique DNA pattern from being created. The body formed from that DNA pattern has the potential to grow and be born as a unique person nine months later. Thus, you murder a unique person every time you fail to have coitus... IF you believe it is murder to prevent the creation of a potential person.
     
  7. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I prefer your original answer "Winnie with logic" .. yep "Winnie" certainly suits you :roflol:

    not-sure-if-troll.png
     
  8. Crcata

    Crcata Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your "coverage" of it does not at all account for the significant difference between the two.

    You are objectively wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    And yet my 2nd answer remains true.
     
  9. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welcome to Crcata's

    CCL.jpg

    Where all trolls are welcome.
     
  10. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I believe this was your rebuttal to the self-defense argument (I invite you to elaborate if I overlooked a stronger argument somewhere in the thread). If a woman wants a child, she will happily endure the hardships and the risks of pregnancy. If a woman does not want a child, the pro-life position is that the government should not have the power to force her to endure that hardship and take on those risks.

    In your rebuttal you imply that a woman has accepted the obligation of pregnancy because she knew that there was a risk of becoming pregnant when she engaged in sexual activity.

    Is that really the way life works? I think not.
    When you drink the water in certain regions of the earth, you accept the risk of ingesting a Guinea Worm egg. If you find that you have a Guinea Worm eating its way through your body, are you obligated to endure that hardship?
    Or... do you agree that you have the right to evict this living organism, even if that results in its certain death?
     
  11. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Linking for context:
    Since you failed to refute the logic you have no basis for that claim, but if you do come up with a logical rebuttal I look forward to reading it.
     
  12. Crcata

    Crcata Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have already refutted it, you just dont accept it. WHich is not surprising given your inherent defense of murder.
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Odd how no one has seen your "refutting" but you :)
     
  14. Crcata

    Crcata Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have, you simply refuse to accept them because you are far to interested in maintaining your false narrative.

    Its very common these days.
     
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You could , in one of your "whining" posts include this "refutting" you claim you did, but I read this whole thread and your "refuting" doesn't exist.

    Stating, "You're wrong, I'm right" is NOT refuting.

    Now, could you quit whining and actually say something about the topic? (for a change)
     
  16. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't feed the trolls Fox
     
  17. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RO, you are talking to a parrot, no matter what you or anyone else says he/she will just reply with the unproven "illogical" or "objective truth" sound-bites, but as already shown the author has zero idea what either of those things are . .they are under the illusion that just by saying something is "illogical" or that they are stating "objective truth" it must be true, despite being shown otherwise .. hence why IMO the person is nothing more than a troll who enjoys reading their own illogical words.
     
  18. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I suspected as much, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt to see if they are capable of having a meaningful exchange of ideas.
     
  19. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I tedn to get bored after half a dozen replies that don't mean anything.
     
  20. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, it's already there.
     
  21. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It could be argued that the pregnant woman existed because her parents did not choose to pass up the opportunity to meet, and they chose to engage in coitus nine months (or so) before her birthday, and she chose not to get an abortion, and God (or nature?) chose not to cause a miscarriage. Changing ANY of those decisions (and many more) would have prevented that woman from taking her first breath.

    Every event in the chain is a choice, so why does it matter which link is broken?
     
  22. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Everyone should be responsible enough if engaged into coitus,
    it's not for pleasure or for fun only but somehow an undertaking to produce life.
    Please let me ask you, how precious is your life?
     
  23. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If sex is not for pleasure or fun, then you are not doing it right. Observation of reality suggests sex is for pleasure, and for bonding people, and for reproduction (and perhaps for other reasons that do not occur to me at the moment). Your assertion suggests that there is a rule someplace that says one must only engage in coitus for the express purpose of creating new persons. Does that mean that we are obligated to have sex at every opportunity so we can be fruitful and multiply? Or... do we have a choice? And... What authority dictates the aforementioned rule?

    How precious is my life? I cannot evaluate that. The people around me would be better judges. If my mother had miscarried, or if she had aborted me, that would have happened long before my mind could have been activated so I would have had no opinion on the matter.
     
  24. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Both my wife and I have been rendered infertile and cannot reproduce...I recommend for your own safety you do not attempt to interfere with our sex lives.
     
  25. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup it's for reproduction alright and the enjoyment is somewhat the driving force to do it. But it would be nice to do such a thing for those who are not ready yet to have a baby to resort with contraceptives, than do it without it then just eliminate what's being created, that is tantamount to killing and of course it defies laws of the land.

    Your life is your life and you should know about it otherwise it will not be precious for you if you would rely on someone else opinion in how your life should be.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page