good answer, so now we move on .. Why should your moral viewpoint be any better or more "right" than mine? Not such a good answer, this just takes us back to the start .. it only begs the question because they argument you are building is based on your moral perspective, and as already pointed out your argument relies on an assumption that you cannot prove ie that pro-choicers think abortion is a moral right .. can you prove that-that is what pro-choicers think?
I'm going to contest this now(In the other thread, you brought it up but why not here?) First, I'll outline what I concur with: -Yes, we have individualistic morality. -Yes we have free-will -And yes we can choose to follow the "accepted morality" or not. However, Morality is in fact a bane for society and absolutely necessary. When morality was thrown out the window. The Nazis happened. Stalin and the Gulags happened. We ourselves even nuked Japan, and if you want me to personally invoke England, the examples are far too historic. The malnutrition of the East Indies, It was Britain that originated the Slave Trade. Speaking of Japan, the Rape of Nanking is another excellent example. To say that Society isn't(or shouldn't) be based on morals is a flat out lie that has killed billions of human beings over the past century. If we can't even give guaranteed legal status to our newborns, the buck will naturally degrade. It always has, and it always will. You made a remark about how if we created an artificial womb, this would all be for naught. True as that would be, do you mind if I recommend something a bit "childish"(in the context that it's an anime). Watch Gundam Seed(the first season). The series as a whole is very under-rated and dare I say, I got my political baptism from it. If you don't want to watch the series, I'll just get to what I was eluding to. http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Rau_Le_Creuset Words don't do this character justice though, I sware, watch the series. Despite it being an anime, it's political baptism by fire. It got me started on realizing how political power can only be countered by a greater political power, how moral and ethics have to guide that power to a proper resolution. If we were to go so far as genetic modifications, we have to put things in place not to abuse that.
I have never said that a moral basis is not needed in society, the question that arises is in which moral basis should we follow, on a personal level I find that the religious morality has pretty much run its course and that there are fewer and fewer people who are willing to follow a strictly religious moral code .. that worked in times when people were basically uneducated, now science and education has provided answers to a lot of the questions previously answered by the church and to be honest the church has been found wanting. As far as abortion is concerned it should be left to the individual moral decisions of the person, as it is with child birth, we should no more legislate against abortion than legislate for birth, and that is what anti-abortion laws do they legally force a person to remain pregnant . .that goes against everything my morals stand for. There are always going to be people who use positions of power to try to enforce their particular moral viewpoint, the church did and still tries to do it.
Are you serious? I invoked Many examples of societies broken down by a lack of morals. Here in America, slavery and segregation as 19th century long standing practices. I contend that this post of yours is clearly SPAM. In no way would anyone classify my post under Godwins Law. That 'law' specifically refers to the use of 'Nazi' as an ideological comparison or an attack against someone, that's not what I did here.
Why do people continue to get things wrong instead of looking them up. I personally hate getting things wrong because it is embarrassing and will look up every post and point I make Wiki even has a page on Godwins rule/law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Okay. Pro-choicers usually say that late-term abortions don't matter because late-term abortions make up only a small percentage of abortions. Yet they get upset if a pro-lifer says that the 9% of women who have abortions for health reasons, doesn't matter.
so why are you using a generalist term when responding to my comment after you specifically called me a hypocrite, as follows; As I said at the start, yet another throw away comment you think means anything (something)
So??? There ARE reasons other than health for abortion BTW - how do you KNOW that?? How many were malnourished? How many had previous underlying health problems? How many were addicted to substances? How many were taking prescribed meds known to be teratogenic? How many had occupational exposure/environmental exposure to substances that may be Teratogenic? - - - Updated - - - No, what we have said is that your contention that they are a) common and b) done for reasons other than foetal abnormality is in error
Where does the law state that pregnancy is a serious literal injury? Also, I would argue that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, since pregnancy is a natural biological result of sex.
People vs Cross On Appeal - (1) Can a pregnancy without medical complications that results from unlawful but nonforcible sexual conduct with a minor support a finding of great bodily injury? Holding(s): (1) Yes, it can, and here evidence of the pregnancy was sufficient to support such a finding. Issue 1: Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. In Sargent, the court found that the pregnancy itself that followed a rape, constituted a great bodily injury based on the severe intrusion into a womans body. In fact, none of the cases cited by the defendant suggested that medical complications or the use of force is required to support a finding of great bodily injury. Each of the cases instead acknowledges that a great bodily injury determination is to be made by the jury based on the facts as presented at trial in the context of the particular crime and the particular injuries suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Section 12022.7 does not make any such limitation. Therefore, the court rejects defendants argument here that a pregnancy without medical complications that results from nonforcible but unlawful intercourse can never support a finding of great bodily injury. Proof that a victims bodily injury is great, that is, significant or substantial within the meaning of section 12022.7, is commonly established by evidence of the severity of the victims physical injury, the resulting pain, or the medical care required to treat or repair the injury. Nebraska, which defines serious personal injury as great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ. Nebraskas statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigans statute does the same work, defining personal injury as bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ. Case law establishing that pregnancy could be considered a substantial bodily injury that aggravates the sexual assault and increases the sentence imposed performs the same work as statutes that explicitly define pregnancy as a substantial bodily injury. do you need more? Then provide your evidence to support it, or are you under the illusion that just your say-so is enough.
1-Sure. Quote as much evidence to support your opinion, as possible. 2-Pregnancy is a natural biological function. That's a scientific fact.
When you can dispute the already provided evidence then I might just do that. You asked "Where does the law state that pregnancy is a serious literal injury?" I have given you a Supreme Court decision and two state laws that do in fact support and state that pregnancy is a serious literal injury .. what have you given in return .. nothing, nil, zero .. as usual. Got to do better than that Sam, let us see your evidence to support your claim that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the fact that pregnancy is a natural biological function is irrelevant to the issue of consent. You can't even offer a single piece of evidence to dispute that sex only creates a risk of pregnancy or dispute the fact that consent is an ongoing thing, you may consent to something but you can withdraw that consent at anytime.
Not if an innocent child's life is at stake. Any comparisons that you make are simply just "apples and oranges" comparisons.
Really, so if you are keeping a child alive by donating blood that only you can give and you change your mind you can legally be forced to continue giving blood .. is that what you are saying, because I would love to see the legal standing for that. What you fail to understand is that consent can be withdrawn at anytime and that does have legal standing.
That's an apples and oranges comparison. Aborting a fetus kills it. Refusing to donate blood to a child does result in the child dying, but refusing to donate blood doesn't directly and intentionally kill the child.
If no one else is able to donate blood then you certainly are directly and intentionally killing the child, explain how it could be otherwise. You still haven't addressed the Supreme Court decision and state laws provided, so I must be able to conclude that you have no dispute to them and that your assertion that pregnancy is not a serious literal injury is incorrect. Neither have you shown anything to dispute consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, or sex only creates the risk of pregnancy, or that consent can be withdrawn at anytime .. so again I must conclude you are incorrect on all of them.
The act of abortion physically kills an unborn child. Refusing to donate blood is simply a refusal to save the child's life by donating blood. If a woman had sex, knowing beforehand that she would get likely pregnant and abort her child, then she didn't consent to pregnancy. So your arugement that "consent can be withdrawn" is invalid.
According to you there is no difference between an unborn "child" and a born one, or are you know changing that? If one adheres to your previously stated position of person at conception then the withdrawal of consent of use of a woman's womb is not different to the withdrawal of blood donations, both actions are premeditated, both actions remove the ability of the child to survive, both actions result in a dead child, or are you alluding to the fetus being given more rights than the born child? Your assertion is based on the assumption that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, you have yet to prove that point, and if she has already stated her non-consent to being pregnant prior to it happening then the consent was never there in the first place and she can avail herself of the unconsented pregnancy.
