Ok. And how in the world then does that mean that your special pleading redefinition of the words “responsible” and “responsibility” to not include abortion actually works?
What about her will? Aren’t you forgetting that she is a conscious, sentient being with a will of her own? Why yes, yes you are. And if she does not desire the fetus to be inside her, to deny her the right to control the contents of her own body is to enslave her to the fetus. You don’t want to support slavery DO YOU?
False analogy. The fetus wasn’t invited; only sex was consented to and invited. Further, the boat isn’t your body. Try again with a proper analogy.
If becoming pregnant is a possible outcome then by having sex you accept the responsibility of one of the possible outcomes. Being pregnant is a condition that is created by the act of sex under most circumstances. Pregnancy is the condition where the baby is dependent on the mother as a result of the mother’s actions. There is no slavery, just simple individual responsibility.
Thus, the football player accepts the responsibility and cannot seek medical attention. It’s YOUR crappy redefinition. I’m just using it to show you where it leads. Also, if the woman is not allowed to exercise her self-ownership by removing something unwanted from her womb, i.e. the fetus, then it is being de facto claimed that the fetus has ownership rights to the womb, and thus owns the woman, because she would be forced to carry and nourish the fetus against her will.
And would you mind terribly addressing the rest of the post?
Good point. Slavery contracts are unenforcable. Letting aside all the other issues to do with contracting with a foetus, that is one of the most devastating blows to the notion that a woman is obligated to either keep the organism alive or provide for it when it is born.
What it comes down to is you believe that the baby is created by some action that the mother is not involved with. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean you are not responsible for your actions. I will use this example again, when you drive a car it is possible that you may cause an accident and injure someone. If the injured person is now dependent on medical care as a result of your actions then you are obligated to pay for it. Killing the person that is now dependent on you is not a reasonable option.
Your arguement requires one to believe that babies are not created by the actions of other people and that womeen’s bodies are not designed to nurture and carry babies during pregnancy. Babies are not foreign invasions occupying space by force. The baby exists as a result of the parents actions. In order to accept your position one would have to believe that people having sex does not have the creation of children as a possible outcome.
Her will? well she has the option not to have sex. The woman takes an action, she has sex of which one of the possible outcomes is that she may help create another human being that she knows will be in her womb and will be dependent on her for it’s well being. So now she has sex and becomes pregnant and you say she has no responsibility to the person she made dependent on her. Refer to my car accident analogy, it is exactly the same as this scenario.
Having sex has possible consequences one of which is creating another human being that is dependent upon you. Are you saying becoming pregnant is not a possible outcome of sex?
Oh, and just because the football player doesn’t like having the broken bone doesn’t mean the football player isn’t responsible, and therefore CANNOT get medical attention.
See how your craptacular argument gets used against you?
Further: a fetus is occupying space within the confines of a self-owner. Deny that and you deny reality. Given that the self-owner owns that space, the self-owner is responsible for that space and can do with that space what the self-owner wants. I defy you to demonstrate that said self-owner, i.e. the woman, loses her self-ownership or even merely the ownership of her womb simply because she is pregnant. I defy you to do that. Why? Because I know that you simply can’t do it. It’s not possible. All you have is a special plead.
Nope. Are you saying that a broken bone is not a possible outcome of playing football? If not, why then is it ok to have the bone set? The player knew the risks–tough it out and live with the broken bone! That’s the logical outcome of applying your idiotic special plead. And you ARE aware that special pleading is a fallacy, RIGHT?
Where you are wrong is that the football player is only dealing with himself. So the football player can seek care for himself because he is not injuring someone else in the process. There is no third party involved for the football player. Pregnancy involves a third party.
Your statement is true that a woman owns her body but what we are discussing is the woman’s relationship to another person. The fact that this other person is physically dependent on the mother doesn’t change the nature of the relationship. Again, the woman is making decisions and these decisions have consequences for which she is responsible.
Again, your ownership of your body does not absolve from responsibility of your actions with your body. The woman made decisions that created a condition that a third party would be dependent on them for care. You can’t simply murder the person that is under your care because you regret that they are now in your care.
So I guess it’s back to the drawing board for your next arguement.
Irrelevant. The football player is a self-owner, and as a self-owner who knowingly does something which puts said self-owner into a position whereby injury can happen and does happen, according to your argument said self-owner cannot have medical attention because that would not be taking responsibility for said self-owner’s actions.
Unless, of course, you wish to admit to special pleading your pet definitions of “responsible” and “responsibility” around. Want to do that? It’s one or the other for you. You need to pick one, because you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Wrong. We are discussing the woman’s relationship to her womb. The fact is that there is no such thing as the right to be a parasite, and I defy you to prove that there is.
There you go again, trotting out you own pet definition of “responsibility”, which somehow excludes abortion. How can you justify your fallacious crap?
And the woman owns her womb. Please demonstrate that a woman no longer owns her womb when she becomes pregnant.
Notice how I keep hitting you with that, and notice how you never show it. Why is that? Perhaps you should go back to the drawing board.
As stated above there is no third party in this example. My example was to demonstrate that people are responsible for their own actions. i will try and make the football example simple for you. Let us suppose that it was common practice that during a football game that when players would collide that sometimes their bones would become fused together for a period of nine months. So player A collides with Player B and they become fused together and player B gets knocked out and is in a coma. Now player A wants to kill Player B because he is violating his self-ownership. My response is, that was a known risk that was possible so player A does not have a claim against player B. That is player A is responsible for his actions and must accept the outcome even if it is not his preferred scenario. The killing of the third party is not justified. Your response is it’s ok if player A kills Player B.
As stated above: that’s irrelevant. I’m using your definitions of “responsible” and “responsibility”. If you do not like that, perhaps you should be consistent. If you cannot be consistent, then I suggest you refrain from discussing this topic.
Yes, the football player is a self-owner and he is responsible for taking care of his broken bone. It is no one elses responsibility to fix the broken bone. I have no idea why you would think that the player can not seek medical attention.
The woman clearly owns her womb. The baby clearly owns itself. So we have a relationship between two people. A relationship brought about by the actions of the woman. The woman made the baby dependant on her for it’s care. The woman is obliged to at least see no intentional harm comes to the other person. The fact that they are physically attached is not relevant to determining whose actions caused the situation and who bears responsibility.
Thats always a sign the opponent is losing in these discussions. Yes, logic and reason are frustrating and I am sure it would be easier if everyone would concede to your ramblings.
In a free society we would expect a lot of different opinions about what is legal on some issues. It is not so much what would be legal but what individuals would be willing to do about certain activities. I consider abortion murder and it should be punished as such. The major sticking points always arise when dealing with people unable to protect themselves.
Let’s take an area I hope we agree on. That is adults should not have sex with children (let’s not get into a consenting age debate so whatever age you clearly think is wrong). Now there are some people that would disagree. In a free society how do we deal with this? It is the same answer for abortion.
Yes, you are. You’ve lost badly because you aren’t using logic or reason, and all you’re doing is putting forth one fallacy after another. I’m sure it would be easier if everyone would just concede to your fallacious garbage, but I refuse to. Must be so frustrating to you that I refuse to allow your fallacious arguments to stand.
I’m curious, like Scineram. What is the appropiate ‘punishment’ for that kind of murder, according to you ? How would you ‘enforce’ your particular vision of what is legal in this case ? What about the people who don’t think that abortion is murder ?