ARTICLE: Thank God I'm Not a Woman!!!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That does not refute my argument, you have merely restated yours with an "IMHO" and an example. I am explaining how that is not the case if there is another being involved in that situation and it is ones responsibility for that. Of course after childbirth, other options present themselves, but only where they are available. If not, it is your responsibility to keep your helpless child alive after birth to the best of ability (i.e. if foster/adoption isn't available to you).

Yes, and you restated yours. That is your opinion, that you have responsibilities like that. As I said, I do not agree. IMHO you have no responsibility for keeping a foetus alive, being or not. It does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. Your argument was your opinion, mine was mine. I wasn't trying to refute you, I was trying to get you to understand that other people, like me, may see it differently.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
This issue is one of abortion. As I said above, if after birth there is that option she is free to take it, if not same thing applies. Before childbirth that is not the case, though if the opportunity does present itself in the future obviously that's fine.

Yes, exactly. Before childbirth there is not the option of adoption. And since, IMHO, the foetus has not claim to life at the expense of the mother, termination is permitted, being or not. The mother has the ability to withdraw her support.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That does not answer my question or address my argument, you have merely reiterated your proposition.

Your proposition was that the mother cannot withdraw her services, and she is obliged not to let it die. The latter is true, IMHO, because of adoption, because she has another option. IMHO, the mother can withdraw her services, other option or not. All you have done is state your proposition, that the women has a responsibility. I have stated that I disagree, and you attack me for not addressing your argument? That part is a simple matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And again.

Again, yes it did. you said "That person cannot be removed and would die if I did so, then I am still responsible for it. " and I claimed that you are not. If it's lving at your expense, you can withdraw your support and responsibility.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You talk as though it is a natural right.

Which it isn't. As I said, all rights are granted by the state. IMHO, if I had a state, that right would be granted. I believe that women should have a right to decide to remove her support.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nonetheless, I shall repeat my argument in the hope that you will address it... the issue of responsibility for ones own actions causes consequences whereupon a being has been created.

I have addressed that. You are not responsible to keep it alive, IMHO. Because either there is another option, or because it is living of your body.

I have addressed your argument all the way along. You were claiming you had a responsibility to look after that being. I claimed that you don't. You can always withdraw your support and responsibility, wrt the beings life.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, and you restated yours. That is your opinion, that you have responsibilities like that. As I said, I do not agree. IMHO you have no responsibility for keeping a foetus alive, being or not. It does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. Your argument was your opinion, mine was mine. I wasn't trying to refute you, I was trying to get you to understand that other people, like me, may see it differently.

You know as well as I do that I do not question that, however you presented your opinion, your proposition, I refuted it and countered it, you have failed thus far to offer a defense of my refutation, or a counter to my proposition, instead of repeating yourself. You have told me nothing new of your position or mine in the course of this debate.

Yes, exactly. Before childbirth there is not the option of adoption. And since, IMHO, the foetus has not claim to life at the expense of the mother, termination is permitted, being or not. The mother has the ability to withdraw her support.

Your argument rests upon the tautology that the foetus does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. One of my points has been to examine and counter that, since you are effectively considering the mother, whereas I am working on the assumption that two beings are being considered. If the child is not a being, by all means you are correct, however it's being presents the notion of responsibility.

Where you assume it to be a being, and you take the child into your care, as in this case of pregnancy and also postnatal childcare, you effectively take the responsibility of the childs free will as your own, and thus to allow it to die as an intent of your actions eliminates their responsibility (the question of influence) and reduces it to impositional killing, iow murder. A claim to life is irrelevant. A right to kill it is, and does not exist in this situation.

Your proposition was that the mother cannot withdraw her services, and she is obliged not to let it die. The latter is true, IMHO, because of adoption, because she has another option. IMHO, the mother can withdraw her services, other option or not. All you have done is state your proposition, that the women has a responsibility. I have stated that I disagree, and you attack me for not addressing your argument? That part is a simple matter of opinion.

My proposition is that the mother has no right to kill a being even for her own ends whereupon its existence and life is her responsibility, regardless of her ends. Whether or not adoption is available is irrelevant to the given situation here. If it is, and after childbirth, then it would undermine my argument since the mother can give it away, but were it not to exist the reasoning would apply in this context. In the case of pregancy, where no option of adoption is available, the issue is starker.

As for your argument, a debate is not simple a question of stating "this is my view" and "this is your view". They engage the other, one person attempting to refute the other and defending. To what ends depends upon the nature of the debate of course, here I view it as testing my position and comparing it to others by dissecting them and experimenting with the predictions of their logic.

Again, yes it did. you said "That person cannot be removed and would die if I did so, then I am still responsible for it. " and I claimed that you are not. If it's lving at your expense, you can withdraw your support and responsibility.

No, my example was that I was directly responsible for the being being so attached, accordingly to the rest of the example, I was responsible for it. If it were an involuntary parasite, by all means, but that was not the case, and is not the case with pregnancy resulting from consenting sex. Therefore to kill it by neglect is to negate your own responsibility for it, a responsibility that exists when you take its freedom, and the consequences of its free will upon yourself. It is the same logic that states that only parents and teachers of a child should administer corporal punishment if that is to be allowed.

Which it isn't. As I said, all rights are granted by the state. IMHO, if I had a state, that right would be granted. I believe that women should have a right to decide to remove her support.

I'm very well aware of that, but now you're being opaque. The question of natural vs. artificial rights is largely irrelevant, I believe I dealt with it on the other page, the question is one of responsibility as a result of ones free will. I know you're a determinist but we previously agreed that the subjective conscious individual (person) at the moment has free will.

I have addressed your argument all the way along.

But you haven't you defend yourself by reiterating yourself and stating your views as factual conclusions of your argument instead of defending against the attacks on that argument! You do not question my assumptions, nor defend your own. The castle is locked and the defenders seem to be asleep.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

What planet do you live on?

Planet America.


Is it different on Planet Europa? What do they serve at these supposed vegan fast food places?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You know as well as I do that I do not question that, however you presented your opinion, your proposition, I refuted it and countered it, you have failed thus far to offer a defense of my refutation, or a counter to my proposition, instead of repeating yourself. You have told me nothing new of your position or mine in the course of this debate.

Refuted mine? Youb gave your opinion about responsibility, after I'd given mine. I said that I didn't agree, and gave reasons and examples why. I did not intend to refute yours, as it was clear that the reason we differed was starting from a different opinion regarding responsibility.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Your argument rests upon the tautology that the foetus does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. One of my points has been to examine and counter that, since you are effectively considering the mother, whereas I am working on the assumption that two beings are being considered. If the child is not a being, by all means you are correct, however it's being presents the notion of responsibility.

I am considering both as I said, yet I believe the mother's choice regarding her support is the key, as the child has no right to that support. Yes, my argument does rest upon that statement, which is my opinion. I do not believe the notion of responsibility does come into this, since I do not believe anyone has responsibility for that childs life.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Where you assume it to be a being, and you take the child into your care, as in this case of pregnancy and also postnatal childcare, you effectively take the responsibility of the childs free will as your own, and thus to allow it to die as an intent of your actions eliminates their responsibility (the question of influence) and reduces it to impositional killing, iow murder. A claim to life is irrelevant. A right to kill it is, and does not exist in this situation.

IMHO, you do not take that childs free will as your own. There is no right to kill, but equally, there is no responsibility to support. You can support, or you can give the child up.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As for your argument, a debate is not simple a question of stating "this is my view" and "this is your view". They engage the other, one person attempting to refute the other and defending. To what ends depends upon the nature of the debate of course, here I view it as testing my position and comparing it to others by dissecting them and experimenting with the predictions of their logic.

But I have not seen you refute my argument, except by saying that the mother has responsibility to the child. Since I don't believe this to be the case, that is no refutation. What I meant by my opinion is on base level, we disagree about the notion of responsibility. Therefore, your refutation holds no water with my view that the mother has a responsibility. A debate is a discussion of views, not purely the way you want to. I presented mine, and I haven't seen an attack from you on them, that doesn't revolve around a premise that I disagree with, and that is purely a matter of opinion. Moreover, my debate was not with you, until you interjected saying you have found a flaw. Since that flaw relies on something that I believe is not true, that is not a flaw to me. That flaw, the original point, would only be a flaw if the mother had a responsibility to keep the child alive. Since, as I've said, I don't believe it does, that is not a flaw for my argument, merely another way it could be seen. Responsibility is not something that can be discussed, you can say why you believe it to exist and I can say why I don't, but i think we've gone over that enough. You cannot attack the premise of it, since that is the premise for our arguments. You whole argument and refutation is mute if the mother has no responsibility, and I don't believe she has, with regards to the childs life. If you have an argument that doesn't revolve around the responsibility, then I'd love to hear it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But you haven't you defend yourself by reiterating yourself and stating your views as factual conclusions of your argument instead of defending against the attacks on that argument! You do not question my assumptions, nor defend your own. The castle is locked and the defenders seem to be asleep.

I have never stated my views as factual conclusions, merely as my opinion. Of course I'm not going to attack your assumptions, they are your opinion, and I'm not going to change that. Similarly, you haven't attacked mine, save presenting yours as contrary. Your argument rests upon the mother having responsibility for the child. I do not believe that to be the case, fruthermore, as I have stated, I believe that adoption, in giving a way out of responsibility, shows that the mother doesn't have any, since she can choose to give up the child. Of course the mother can't kill the child, however she can remove her support. When the adoption option is not present, as in pregnancy, then the mother can still remove her support. If that would kill the foetus, then it does, if they would not, then the baby survives outside of the womb in the states care.

I snipped out the other bits since I've managed to repeat myself enough already.

[Drogue]

Would it have just been easier to have put:

I'll interject to show a big flaw in your reasoning.

BK would counter by saying that the fact you have the child there is a consequence of consenting sex. However, I would make the argument to counter you that where you have a conscious being dependent entirely upon you as a direct result or intent of your own consenting actions, then you have responsibility over that being, whereupon it can be called a being. As a result, to kill it in while it is in such care, is murder. That just applies to beings however.

What responsibility to care for that being? If support can be removed without killing it, that, or if it can't, then removign support with killing it. Either way, you have no responsibility to support that being, IMHO.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Drogue

Did they know that at the time?

Well, "know" is a strong word. Very soon, they'll have been aware that nothing untoward happened to those who refused (well, beyond being sent to the front instead, where the chance of getting killed, needless to say, was higher).

Did they believe they would be punished?

Perhaps. They did not have any reason to.

has it been covered up in the destruction of records?

Almost certainly not.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, if these emergency contraceptives were actually contraceptive, then you would have an argument. However, they are all abortifacients that just change the date when the abortion happens to earlier in the term.

Hmm ... does anyone know when conception takes place after intercourse? I imagine a lot depends on the position of the egg in the fallopian tube, motility of the sperm and so on. Twelve hours? Sixteen? Twenty-four? My point being that if the emergency drugs are administered in a timely fashion, it might prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place.

Even so — and this is where we have a fundamental disagreement — I don't believe a just-fertilized egg constitutes a human being. To me, that's belittling just what the soul is (a small mass of cells, three days old?!) and perhaps even God. IOW, I think (and this is getting into theological and faith ... definitely not conventional science) the soul and God are more intelligent than what some give them credit for. To reduce them to some sort of "Oh! Hey! There's a mass of cells that's going to grow into a human! I must embed myself in there! I don't care if its genetically flawed, or that the woman carrying it is contemplating abortion ... I must embed myself!" mentality is, to me, a bit constricting.

If responsible condom use, and education worked, then there would be no need for emergency 'contraception.' The fact that such a last resort has become popular is an indication of the failure in our current methods of health education. It's no different from abortion as a means of birth control.

Using that logic, if anti-abortion laws worked, there'd be no back alley abortionists, would there? Furthermore, you call it "popular." I disagree, considering the fact that the number of legal abortions in this country has actually declined from its high.

What it comes down to is this: There are 6.2 billion people on this planet, and it's nigh impossible to get them all to do "the right thing," all the time. IMO, once sex education is offered and taken, then society has done what it can, and now it's up the individual in question. It's their life, and one can only hope they do right by it.

You are dealing with more than one person, Gatekeeper. Why should the physician, and the pharmacist and the nurse be concerned only for the life of the mother, and neglect the child growing inside of her.

As it is, they have a responsibility to both, and they are right to refuse treatment that kills a person.

I believe Ming does a good job of addressing this above.

That's the problem with condoms, and why abstinence needs to play a more prominent role. If people understood that even if they do everything right, they can still get pregnant, then they will be less likely to engage in the behavior in the first place.

Rather than being shocked, it would be better to show them how to avoid this whole situation in the first place.

Yet history obviously shows that just saying "no" and using abstinence education doesn't work 100 percent, either. Therefore, you need to expose people to *all* aspects of sex education — abstinence, STDs, the stages of pregnancy and childbirth, contraception options and so on. That way, they not only know the best way to avoid pregnancy, but also what options they have if pregnancy occurs.

Hold on a minute. Why should the woman be the only one to have a say? If we hold men up to their responsibility to take care of the children they conceive, then we can avoid many of the problems that come afterwards.

It's not fair to burden everything on the women, when the responsibility should be shared.

I did include men in my statement. Go back and look.

That said, a big part of my gripe with anti-abortionists (aside from what you already know) is the fact that so much of what they do seems to be aimed squarely at keeping the woman in her place. Not the man. It's rare for me to ever hear anything about the responsibility the man has in the whole affair. It angers me. Perhaps that "Isn't she too young?" campaign should go nationwide, since a good deal of unwanted pregnancies are caused by older men having their way with teenage girls.

Gatekeeper

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but Pharmacists are not executioners.

So?

[Agathon]

So a pharmacist is supposed to give out a drug that has no other purpose than to kill another person?

If necessary pharmacists may be compelled to dispense contraceptives and aborticides as a condition of being licenced.

The point of having pharmacists is that they are supposed to provide a service to the public, to make sure they do this job properly the state has the right to issue regulations - just like any other profession.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, however.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drogue

And those pharmacists are imposing their moral code on a women who wants to terminate the pregnancy.

I'm imposing my moral code when I refuse to assist a suicide too. Your point?

[Ted Striker]

Thank god I'm not a woman.

I'd be self-hitting it 24/7

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


If necessary pharmacists may be compelled to dispense contraceptives and aborticides as a condition of being licenced.

The point of having pharmacists is that they are supposed to provide a service to the public, to make sure they do this job properly the state has the right to issue regulations - just like any other profession.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, however.

I'd like to see that regulation get passed.

Many pharacists here own their own store. You're going to require a business to carry products they are vehemently against?

What do you do to doctors who refuse to perform abortions?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Thank god I'm not a woman.

I'd be self-hitting it 24/7

Like you aren't now.

[Ted Striker]

touche!!!!

[dudemanjack]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

In actuality, they did have the option to not to kill and remain in the army; apparently, no-one was ever punished for refusing to participitate in killings of civilians or POWs.

OTOH, if they quit the army before the expiry of their contracts, they risked being executed as deserteurs.

Of course then you get sent to the eastern front to be killed by Russians...