[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Because marriage is an equal partnership. Pregnancy is not. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far. Both sides have to agree to divorce- to split up friends and net worth and living arrangements, but she has the only say in destroying a potential human being. That's a disgusting mindset. What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]If you need two signatures to dissolve a marriage, why should you only need 1 to dissolve a potential human being?El_Zo1212o
Why are people who are pro-life demonized?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Conservatives are making a decision based on the unborn baby. They feel the unborn has a right to life. A "choice" to live, if you will.[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
Yes, and pro-choicers recognize that, which is why they support individual choice. Â If a conservative mother wants to protect the "life" of her fetus then she can go ahead and carry it to term. Â It's when conservatives think they can make that decision for everyone that there's a problem.
theone86
And that's a completley subjective feeling, hence why choice is best.
Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
I didn't make it part of the debate. I was talking about the man vs the woman in who gets a say on whether or not the life form is destroyed.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Who cares about life forms? We destroy life forms constantly and think nothing of it. Why is this even part of the debate?
worlock77
The woman is the one who has to carry it. The woman is the one who has to put her health at stake over it, and the woman is the one who ultimately has to care for it.
"...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] I didn't make it part of the debate. I was talking about the man vs the woman in who gets a say on whether or not the life form is destroyed.El_Zo1212o
The woman is the one who has to carry it. The woman is the one who has to put her health at stake over it, and the woman is the one who ultimately has to care for it.
"...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?it's not part of him
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] I didn't make it part of the debate. I was talking about the man vs the woman in who gets a say on whether or not the life form is destroyed.El_Zo1212o
The woman is the one who has to carry it. The woman is the one who has to put her health at stake over it, and the woman is the one who ultimately has to care for it.
"...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?How is it a part of him? And even if it is why the hell does that matter?[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Conservatives are making a decision based on the unborn baby. They feel the unborn has a right to life. A "choice" to live, if you will.
BMD004
And that's a completley subjective feeling, hence why choice is best.
Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
Except with rape and murder you can unequivocally show that someone else's rights were violated. Â Not so much with abortion
And who sets the dollar value of a human life?[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="lostrib"]
No, you said that her plans arent worth as much as a potential human life. Â So if her plans are worth more than a potential human life, then can we abort it?
lostrib
It has been set. Â The US government has estimated the value of a single life at 6-7 million dollars.
So you can shoot someone in the face and pay a fine of $6M and just walk away? Because if that's not the case then your argument is stupid and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand."...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?How is it a part of him? And even if it is why the hell does that matter?[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
The woman is the one who has to carry it. The woman is the one who has to put her health at stake over it, and the woman is the one who ultimately has to care for it.
toast_burner
apparently sharing genetic code makes you the property of someone
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Because marriage is an equal partnership. Pregnancy is not.ÂThat's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far. Both sides have to agree to divorce- to split up friends and net worth and living arrangements, but she has the only say in destroying a potential human being. That's a disgusting mindset. What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. It is his baby, too. That is why it isn't asinine.Barbariser
[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] And who sets the dollar value of a human life?El_Zo1212o
It has been set. Â The US government has estimated the value of a single life at 6-7 million dollars.
So you can shoot someone in the face and pay a fine of $6M and just walk away? Because if that's not the case then your argument is stupid and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.except that's murder, which is a crime so you can't just walk away
What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. It is his baby, too. That is why it isn't asinine.[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far. Both sides have to agree to divorce- to split up friends and net worth and living arrangements, but she has the only say in destroying a potential human being. That's a disgusting mindset.BMD004
so is he going to take it out and stick in his uterus?
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] I didn't make it part of the debate. I was talking about the man vs the woman in who gets a say on whether or not the life form is destroyed.El_Zo1212o
The woman is the one who has to carry it. The woman is the one who has to put her health at stake over it, and the woman is the one who ultimately has to care for it.
"...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?What do you think I mean by it? The man might contribute financially, but the woman is the one who does most, if not all, of the actual work in raising the child. Maybe the man changes a diaper or two here and there, but that's usually about it.
It is his baby, too. That is why it isn't asinine.[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="Barbariser"] What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. lostrib
so is he going to take it out and stick in his uterus?
That isn't the point. When two people make a baby, it isn't asinine to think the father of that baby should also have a say.Â
Yes, the mother has to physically carry the baby, but the child is both of theirs.
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]It is his baby, too. That is why it isn't asinine.
BMD004
so is he going to take it out and stick in his uterus?
That isn't the point. When two people make a baby, it isn't asinine to think the father of that baby should also have a say.Â
Yes, the mother has to physically carry the baby, but the child is both of theirs.
Okay, well if he wants the baby then he should take care of it and give birth to it. Â Seems only fair
That isn't the point. When two people make a baby, it isn't asinine to think the father of that baby should also have a say.[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
so is he going to take it out and stick in his uterus?
lostrib
Â
Yes, the mother has to physically carry the baby, but the child is both of theirs.
Okay, well if he wants the baby then he should take care of it and give birth to it. Â Seems only fair
Physically impossible. Let's stick to reality here.
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]That isn't the point. When two people make a baby, it isn't asinine to think the father of that baby should also have a say.
Â
Yes, the mother has to physically carry the baby, but the child is both of theirs.
BMD004
Okay, well if he wants the baby then he should take care of it and give birth to it. Â Seems only fair
Physically impossible. Let's stick to reality here.Oh then that's too bad. So he wants to impose his will, but without putting in any of the effort
Physically impossible. Let's stick to reality here.[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
Okay, well if he wants the baby then he should take care of it and give birth to it. Â Seems only fair
lostrib
Oh then that's too bad. So he wants to impose his will, but without putting in any of the effort
You are acting like the father is just going to let the woman be on her own for 9 months while he tells her what to do. If he isn't there to help her with her pregnancy, then he doesn't deserve to have a say.What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. It is his baby, too. That is why it isn't asinine. The fetus is not equally his. For biological reasons, the amount of effort and risk-bearing a father invests into a fetus is so insignificant compared to the mother's that to give him a decisive amount of power and responsibility for the fetus makes no fvcking sense from any perspective whatsoever.[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far. Both sides have to agree to divorce- to split up friends and net worth and living arrangements, but she has the only say in destroying a potential human being. That's a disgusting mindset.BMD004
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Physically impossible. Let's stick to reality here.
BMD004
Oh then that's too bad. So he wants to impose his will, but without putting in any of the effort
You are acting like the father is just going to let the woman be on her own for 9 months while he tells her what to do. If he isn't there to help her with her pregnancy, then he doesn't deserve to have a say.So now it's an unquantifiable measure to determine if the man has a say? Â And you're assuming the woman would want this man around
[QUOTE="BMD004"]It is his baby, too. That is why it isn't asinine. The fetus is not equally his. For biological reasons, the amount of effort and risk-bearing a father invests into a fetus is so insignificant compared to the mother's that to give him a decisive amount of power and responsibility for the fetus makes no fvcking sense from any perspective whatsoever. The fact that it is HIS baby matters. I have not said where I stand on the issue... but it certainly isn't asinine to think the father should have a say like you said.[QUOTE="Barbariser"] What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. Barbariser
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Conservatives are making a decision based on the unborn baby. They feel the unborn has a right to life. A "choice" to live, if you will.
BMD004
And that's a completley subjective feeling, hence why choice is best.
Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective. Â I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality. Â For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed. Â We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.
People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same. Â Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.
You were doing so well up until now. Choice is obviously the better option because it gives people the freedom to... well... CHOOSE. 'Abortion is murder.' Then don't do it. 'Abortion is okay!' Then go right ahead. Making abortion illegal is ridiculous because laws are made to cover an entire country of people with different beliefs. If some people believe abortion is murder then they ought to worry about their own souls(it is, of course, a religious argument) and leave their neighbors to tend their own.Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.
Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
BMD004
You are acting like the father is just going to let the woman be on her own for 9 months while he tells her what to do. If he isn't there to help her with her pregnancy, then he doesn't deserve to have a say.[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
Oh then that's too bad. So he wants to impose his will, but without putting in any of the effort
lostrib
So now it's an unquantifiable measure to determine if the man has a say? Â And you're assuming the woman would want this man around
If she doesn't want the father around but he wants to be around, then he deserves a say. It isn't the father's fault if he wants to help but she doesn't want it.Â
If the father ditches her, then he doesn't get a say.
So you can shoot someone in the face and pay a fine of $6M and just walk away? Because if that's not the case then your argument is stupid and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="lostrib"]
It has been set. Â The US government has estimated the value of a single life at 6-7 million dollars.
lostrib
except that's murder, which is a crime so you can't just walk away
George Z. laughs at this argument. *rimshot*Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
And that's a completley subjective feeling, hence why choice is best.
theone86
Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective. Â I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality. Â For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed. Â We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.
People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same. Â Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.
Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
"...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
The woman is the one who has to carry it. The woman is the one who has to put her health at stake over it, and the woman is the one who ultimately has to care for it.
worlock77
What do you think I mean by it? The man might contribute financially, but the woman is the one who does most, if not all, of the actual work in raising the child. Maybe the man changes a diaper or two here and there, but that's usually about it.
Maybe back in the 'fifties, but if that's the measure of parenthood, then most kids mothers nowadays are underpaid undocumented women. Moron.[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] So you can shoot someone in the face and pay a fine of $6M and just walk away? Because if that's not the case then your argument is stupid and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.El_Zo1212o
except that's murder, which is a crime so you can't just walk away
George Z. laughs at this argument. *rimshot*Well except he was arrested and tried, and still open to possible civil suit.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"] What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. El_Zo1212oNice. Note how I've never said abortion is murder. In fact, earlier I compared a fetus to kitchen mold. But again. Genetically, the life form is an amalgamation of the two people, therefore, I see absolutely no reason why the decision to terminate it should be unilateral. You'll also note I said earlier that if there is serious risk to the mother, get rid of it. If it's a matter of pain and inconvenience, then she ought to have considered more carefully before getting sweaty bareback with the dude.
You were doing so well up until now. Choice is obviously the better option because it gives people the freedom to... well... CHOOSE. 'Abortion is murder.' Then don't do it. 'Abortion is okay!' Then go right ahead. Making abortion illegal is ridiculous because laws are made to cover an entire country of people with different beliefs. If some people believe abortion is murder then they ought to worry about their own souls(it is, of course, a religious argument) and leave their neighbors to tend their own. I can see it that way.Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.
Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
BMD004
[QUOTE="lostrib"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]You are acting like the father is just going to let the woman be on her own for 9 months while he tells her what to do. If he isn't there to help her with her pregnancy, then he doesn't deserve to have a say.
BMD004
So now it's an unquantifiable measure to determine if the man has a say? Â And you're assuming the woman would want this man around
If she doesn't want the father around but he wants to be around, then he deserves a say. It isn't the father's fault if he wants to help but she doesn't want it.Â
If the father ditches her, then he doesn't get a say.
So how much help does he have to give/offer in order to get a say? Â And does he have to be a good father, or just a father? Â
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.
Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
BMD004
There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective. Â I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality. Â For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed. Â We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.
People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same. Â Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.
Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
Nevermind his response- where ARE you going with that?[QUOTE="BMD004"]Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?[QUOTE="theone86"]
There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective. Â I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality. Â For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed. Â We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.
People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same. Â Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.
El_Zo1212o
Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
Nevermind his response- where ARE you going with that?Depends on his response.
Nevermind his response- where ARE you going with that?Depends on his response. Let me guess: You're going to bring up Don Marquis' argument against abortion?[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="BMD004"]Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?
Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
BMD004
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Depends on his response. Let me guess: You're going to bring up Don Marquis' argument against abortion?Who? I'm not familiar with that, and I would guess no that is not where I'm going with this.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] Nevermind his response- where ARE you going with that?ghoklebutter
Is there something wrong with you? I just gave you an explanation of why your argument is nonsense and all you did was just repeat what you said earlier. [QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine. Nice. Note how I've never said abortion is murder. In fact, earlier I compared a fetus to kitchen mold. But again. Genetically, the life form is an amalgamation of the two people, therefore, I see absolutely no reason why the decision to terminate it should be unilateral. You'll also note I said earlier that if there is serious risk to the mother, get rid of it. If it's a matter of pain and inconvenience, then she ought to have considered more carefully before getting sweaty bareback with the dude. If you're going to be a pedantic dick then I never said that you said abortion was murder either. I was however commenting on the extreme oddness of your original argument that "it's morally wrong to destroy a life unless you have two people agreeing to it, because you need two people to negotiate the division of properties after a divorce!". What the hell do genetics have to do with this? If the decision to terminate a pregnancy was determined by the presence of common DNA then you should be bringing in grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunts right? After all, the baby is genetically an amalgamation of all those people right? :roll: Oh please, if we're going to play "would have, should have" game then I can just say "well, if the father didn't want to risk his fetus being terminated without his consent maybe he shouldn't have impregnated a girl and thus placed almost all of the responsibility, effort and sacrifice for the fetus's care with one person."[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="BMD004"]The fact that it is HIS baby matters. I have not said where I stand on the issue... but it certainly isn't asinine to think the father should have a say like you said.
BMD004
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Everything is subjective. Some people might think there is nothing wrong with rape or murder. That is extreme, but you get the point. We have decided as a society that those things are wrong.
Â
So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.
BMD004
There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective. Â I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality. Â For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed. Â We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.
People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same. Â Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.
Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
One lacks security. Â There is no consequence for murder and everyone in society is therefore at a much greater risk of being murdered.
[QUOTE="BMD004"]No, you ignored my reply. Your basic argument was that since the woman is physically carrying the baby, that she has 100% of the say. And I'm saying that you may disagree, but it isn't some crazy idea to think he should get a say also.[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="BMD004"]The fact that it is HIS baby matters. I have not said where I stand on the issue... but it certainly isn't asinine to think the father should have a say like you said.
Barbariser
Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective. Â I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality. Â For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed. Â We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.
People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same. Â Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.
theone86
Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
One lacks security. Â There is no consequence for murder and everyone in society is therefore at a much greater risk of being murdered.
That negatively impacts the individual. But how does it negatively impact society as a whole?[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Okay, I can see it that way. But explain to me how murder is harmful to society. What makes it harmful to society as a whole?
Â
Â
(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)
BMD004
One lacks security. Â There is no consequence for murder and everyone in society is therefore at a much greater risk of being murdered.
That negatively impacts the individual. But how does it negatively impact society as a whole?It impacts every individual, therefore it impacts society.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] "...who ultimately has to care for it"? What, exactly, do you mean by that? Aside from that, again, it comes down to the fact that it is part of him too, so why is it okay for her to have it destroyed without consulting him(or in some cases even letting him know about it in the first place) because of a short term inconvenience?El_Zo1212o
What do you think I mean by it? The man might contribute financially, but the woman is the one who does most, if not all, of the actual work in raising the child. Maybe the man changes a diaper or two here and there, but that's usually about it.
Maybe back in the 'fifties, but if that's the measure of parenthood, then most kids mothers nowadays are underpaid undocumented women. Moron.Uh-huh. Because hiring people to raise you children is such a common thing amoung the general population. Idiot.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"] Is there something wrong with you? I just gave you an explanation of why your argument is nonsense and all you did was just repeat what you said earlier. [QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] What the fvck kind of sh!t logic is this? If abortion is murder it doesn't fvcking matter whether one people or two people decide to do it, and the legal division of property in a marriage has no relevance whatsoever. If abortion is not murder, then the woman obviously gets sole pick whether to end the pregnancy because she contributes practically all of the effort and bears the brunt of the pain, risk and danger from actually carrying a baby to term. The idea that the man is entitled to an equal say in the decision to abort because he spent a few minutes pumping some man juice into the girl is utterly asinine.
Nice. Note how I've never said abortion is murder. In fact, earlier I compared a fetus to kitchen mold. But again. Genetically, the life form is an amalgamation of the two people, therefore, I see absolutely no reason why the decision to terminate it should be unilateral. You'll also note I said earlier that if there is serious risk to the mother, get rid of it. If it's a matter of pain and inconvenience, then she ought to have considered more carefully before getting sweaty bareback with the dude. If you're going to be a pedantic dick then I never said that you said abortion was murder either. I was however commenting on the extreme oddness of your original argument that "it's morally wrong to destroy a life unless you have two people agreeing to it, because you need two people to negotiate the division of properties after a divorce!". What the hell do genetics have to do with this? If the decision to terminate a pregnancy was determined by the presence of common DNA then you should be bringing in grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunts right? After all, the baby is genetically an amalgamation of all those people right? :roll: Oh please, if we're going to play "would have, should have" game then I can just say "well, if the father didn't want to risk his fetus being terminated without his consent maybe he shouldn't have impregnated a girl and thus placed almost all of the responsibility, effort and sacrifice for the fetus's care with one person." I'm not sure exactly what it means to be a 'pedantic dick,' but I'm pretty sure that's my intention. I go to places like OT and SW to give free reign to my most controversial opinions. My original comparison to divorce was to illustrate the oddness of society in requiring two people to enter into marriage and two people to end the arrangement, whereas two people consent to unprotected sex, but only one has a say in ending the life resulting from that decision. In most states, you can't shoot someone to death for breaking into your home and stealing your property. Therefore, life is supposed to be more valuable, and therefore better protected, than property. But ending a life created by two people only takes the authority of one person just because of where it grows? That's just crazy.That negatively impacts the individual. But how does it negatively impact society as a whole?[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
One lacks security. Â There is no consequence for murder and everyone in society is therefore at a much greater risk of being murdered.
theone86
It impacts every individual, therefore it impacts society.
How would society as a whole... from a macro perspective... be affected by murder not being a crime?Â
It seems as if you are arguing that murder is wrong not from a moral perspective, but from a perspective of practicality. Murder is wrong because it negatively impacts society by doing this, this, and this.
Â
Is that correct?
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BMD004"]That negatively impacts the individual. But how does it negatively impact society as a whole?
BMD004
It impacts every individual, therefore it impacts society.
How would society as a whole... from a macro perspective... be affected by murder not being a crime?Â
It seems as if you are arguing that murder is wrong not from a moral perspective, but from a perspective of practicality. Murder is wrong because it negatively impacts society by doing this, this, and this.
Â
Is that correct?
Morality is practicality. Â If the practical consequences of murder did not exist then the moral sanction against murder never would have developed.
I told you how society suffers. Â One lacks security. Â Every individual in society is fearful of murder because there are no sanctions against it. Â One's life can be terminated in an instant by anyone quite easily because the perpatrator can do it anywhere at any time and simply walk away.
Maybe back in the 'fifties, but if that's the measure of parenthood, then most kids mothers nowadays are underpaid undocumented women. Moron.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
What do you think I mean by it? The man might contribute financially, but the woman is the one who does most, if not all, of the actual work in raising the child. Maybe the man changes a diaper or two here and there, but that's usually about it.
worlock77
Uh-huh. Because hiring people to raise you children is such a common thing amoung the general population. Idiot.
Are you honestly suggesting this isn't the case? You think that families with two working parents is in the minority? Wow.How would society as a whole... from a macro perspective... be affected by murder not being a crime?[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
It impacts every individual, therefore it impacts society.
theone86
Â
It seems as if you are arguing that murder is wrong not from a moral perspective, but from a perspective of practicality. Murder is wrong because it negatively impacts society by doing this, this, and this.
Â
Is that correct?
Morality is practicality. Â If the practical consequences of murder did not exist then the moral sanction against murder never would have developed.
I told you how society suffers. Â One lacks security. Â Every individual in society is fearful of murder because there are no sanctions against it. Â One's life can be terminated in an instant by anyone quite easily because the perpatrator can do it anywhere at any time and simply walk away.
What about murder against those who have no quantifiable value to society. For example, a homeless man with no family or friends?[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="BMD004"]How would society as a whole... from a macro perspective... be affected by murder not being a crime?
Â
It seems as if you are arguing that murder is wrong not from a moral perspective, but from a perspective of practicality. Murder is wrong because it negatively impacts society by doing this, this, and this.
Â
Is that correct?
BMD004
Morality is practicality. Â If the practical consequences of murder did not exist then the moral sanction against murder never would have developed.
I told you how society suffers. Â One lacks security. Â Every individual in society is fearful of murder because there are no sanctions against it. Â One's life can be terminated in an instant by anyone quite easily because the perpatrator can do it anywhere at any time and simply walk away.
What about murder against those who have no quantifiable value to society. For example, a homeless man with no family or friends?Quantifiable value is not the issue, in fact I would posit that treating people that way has an aggregate negative effect on society as a whole. Â Every individual has inherent value and is a part of society, the problem is that they are treated as if they are not.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Men have no in's either though. Like I said before. If a man wants his baby and the woman does not, he should have a legal right to stop the abortion and agree to be that child's sole provider. Just because a man can't get pregnant doesnt mean it should be any less his.El_Zo1212o
No. He should not have the right to stop a woman from getting an abortion under any circumstance. While the fetus is still attached to the woman's body, she must be the one to make the decision. Otherwise, her bodily autonomy is being limited by somebody who is not even carrying the fetus, which makes no sense.
She gave up her 'bodily autonomy' when she decided to let a man put his genetic material into it. A woman shouuld only be able to make such a decision unilaterally when she had no choice in the matter(rape) or when the man isn't involved in the first place(sperm donor).Um, no. If there is a dispute between the mother and father on whether or not as abortion should take place, someone is going to have to get their way. There is no reason that the person that doesn't have the fetus attached their body should make the decision.Â
That's not to say that the mother shouldn't take the father's wishes into consideration. But disputes have to be settled and the only sensible way of doing so is to let the mother make the decision because of her unique qualities (carrying the fetus).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment