Right to Contraception Under Attack

[Ben Kenobi]

The cessation of existence before the existence of existence is not possible . I cannot be killed before I am born , because before I am born , I am not I , or I do not exist as I . You cant kill the same thing at an earlier stage because at an earlier stage the thing isnt the same thing.

So you spring into being suddenly at birth, and not before, and not after?

What's so special, physiologically, to explain the significance of birth?

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting thing I noticed from the pictures I've seen from it is that while the pro-choicers where predominately women, the pro-lifers that showed up where predominately men.

Who took the pictures? This would imply selection bias.

[Ben Kenobi]

My assumption is that the developement of a human in the fetal stages is like it's installation on earth - it progresses from 0 % to 100 %.

Cool. This is a significant admission, that human development is a continuum, starting from conception.

However,

If you want to stop the install , it's your PC/body , you can do what you want with it .

The problem lies in the simplistic analogy between a computer and a program on the computer. First of all, if you believe that there is a human person at birth, you are left with the question of where does this person come from? The obvious answer would be to see a continuum progress from conception, to birth, and onwards, without break or interruption.

Therefore, if you are a person at birth, you must also be a person before birth. Ergo, you are not talking about one person, but two. You do not have a right to kill someone just because they are temporarily in your body, no more than you have to kill someone just for riding in your car, or your boat.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're offended by abortions, don't have one.

"Don't like slavery, don't own a slave."

I agree with you that just because abortion is hard to look at does not necessarily mean that we ought to ban abortion.

However, the fact that we find abortion disgusting ought to have us raise the question of why do we permit abortion in a society, if we cannot bear to even look at pictures.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then bump the thread in question.

Why? You obviously didn't care enough about it to bother keeping up with it. I'm not able to draw blood from a stone, and I'm not able to force you to back up your assertions.

If you believe personhood to begin at conception, then abortion results in the death of a person. Since this is premediated, it would seem murder is the best category for abortion.

Apparently you believe that you're capable of infallibly determining the intentions of others, and so I apologize for trying to be reasonable with you. I'll assume that pro-choicers are also infallibly capable of determining the intentions of others, which in this case would make you a misogynist.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not always here, Loin.

"I've never gotten a straight answer"

I gave you a straight answer.

[loinburger]

Neither am I. Doesn't mean that I'm going to make a slew of posts in a thread wherein I accuse people of murder, then abandon the thread, and then make a slew of identical posts in a different thread on the same subject. If you're interested in discussing something, then see your threads through til their conclusion. If you're just interested in spouting empty rhetoric, then continue along your present course.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
"Don't like slavery, don't own a slave."

I agree with you that just because abortion is hard to look at does not necessarily mean that we ought to ban abortion.

However, the fact that we find abortion disgusting ought to have us raise the question of why do we permit abortion in a society, if we cannot bear to even look at pictures.

True, although I'm not against slavery because it offends me, but because I think one person controlling another unwillingly is a bad thing. I don't think the offensiveness of the pictures raises any question, I think the status of the foetus and it's right to life, or lack of, does that. I don't think pictures of dead foetuses brings anything to the debate, but plain emotive shock tactics designed to scare the public.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're interested in discussing something, then see your threads through til their conclusion.

Good questions in the other thread, BTW.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Who took the pictures? This would imply selection bias.

The pictures I saw where taken by a bystander from another forum. He posted them along with photos from another rally that happened that week (he lives in the area) and didn't provide any real political commentary.

[Ben Kenobi]

The pictures I saw where taken by a bystander from another forum. He posted them along with photos from another rally that happened that week (he lives in the area) and didn't provide any real political commentary.

Fair enough.

Inadvertently skewed sample.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think pictures of dead foetuses brings anything to the debate, but plain emotive shock tactics designed to scare the public.

Well, what do you do when your opposition refuses to meet you in a debate after they got trounced?

I agree with you that there are better ways, but I am interested to hear in what other suggestions you would have for the prolifers.

[Drogue]

Well, I think the argument is about when life starts, and whether or not we have an inate right to life, that cannot exclude anyone. Also, on whether that right to life outweighs the womens right to her own body and resources.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you spring into being suddenly at birth, and not before, and not after?

Yes.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What's so special, physiologically, to explain the significance of birth?

It's when you become independant, and not completely reliant on the mother for your life.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Cool. This is a significant admission, that human development is a continuum, starting from conception.

However,



The problem lies in the simplistic analogy between a computer and a program on the computer. First of all, if you believe that there is a human person at birth, you are left with the question of where does this person come from? The obvious answer would be to see a continuum progress from conception, to birth, and onwards, without break or interruption.

Therefore, if you are a person at birth, you must also be a person before birth. Ergo, you are not talking about one person, but two. You do not have a right to kill someone just because they are temporarily in your body, no more than you have to kill someone just for riding in your car, or your boat.

As said earlier , you are neither a person , nor a non-person before birth . You are a semi-person . Whether abortion is murder or not has to be decided on the basis of how much the semi-person is semi-human-person . And , the boundary lines being undefined for human and semi-human personhood , this debate will go on forever .

And the boat or car analogy is also equally fallacious . The person is in your car with your consent . The person is in your bost definitely with your consent .

Also , should the programmer be forced to go through with the loading (remember that the being who will come into existence is a human codified) ?

And lastly , it is a nice change to be debating with an anti-abortionist/pro-lifer who takes the trouble to use logic i their posts . Thank you .