No, you have lied and special plead. THAT is what you have done.
Then she can have the fetus removed.
Irrelevant. Try something that does NOT involve special pleading and the belief that consent can never be revoked (if you can…but I know you can’t).
Why, then? Your position logically entails it.
I did offer the pro-abortion crowd the opportunity to provide when they thought human life began but I see you are unwillingly to offer up your definition. I assume we agree that life does begin at some point.
If protecting children from murder is absurd to you then that would be correct. My position is the only true libertarian position because it not only recognizes individual freedom but individual accountability.
Like any crime the investigation would depend on the evidence available. I didn’t say anything about keeping track of all women. That is your hysteria talking.
Wrong. Your position is the one which only recognizes the fetus, and ignores the woman’s right of self-ownership. It is disgusting, immoral, and involves slavery.
I think the logic speaks for itself.
Yes, we disagree about personal responsibility. In your world people are not responsible for their actions and what harm their actions may cause to others.
You’re basing your position on two facts: a) that the foetus has rights. If it has yet to develop its rational potentiality, this is false. There is just a lump of flesh. b) That the mother is responsible and thus has obligations to the foetus, of the contractual sort. Hence whether it can contract or not is irrelevant. As Knight_of_BAAWA stated, there is no positive “right to life” nor is there the right to be a parasite. As for him responding on my behalf, I have no problem with this as I usually do the same anyway, and because it is amusing to see him tear into you, something you are in the habit of doing to others, albeit less elegantly.
-Jon
Speaks volumes about your inability to correctly reason, yes.
Yes. In your world, “responsiblity” is whatever you think people should do, and if they don’t: they’re just evil! You want to dictate everyone’s behavior. Anyone who doesn’t live up to what you think they should do is to be exterminated to make way for the New Soviet Man.
In my world, people are responsible for their own actions, despite your blatant lie to the contrary. In my world, responsibility does not exclude abortion. In my world, responsibility is simply being accountable for one’s own actions. Now how abortion isn’t being accountable boggles the mind. Perhaps you could explain it to everyone. In fact, I demand that you do. You’ve been spewing your own pet definition of “responsibility”. So now you get to show that it’s correct, sport. Go to it.
How have I lied?
We have had this discussion already and you seem unwilling or unable to address the examples I have provided.
Consent can be revoked in some situations. This just isn’t one of them without causing murder.
No it doesnt. Miscarriage is not a willful act of the woman. Also, during a miscarriage it can not be detemined whether the result of the miscarriage was a result of the baby or the mother. There is no fault during a miscarriage thus there is no manslaughter.
I have explicitly recognized the rights of the woman…and her accountability for her actions.
By stating that you believe the woman owns her womb, when your argument logically precludes that. And, given your utter dedication to your argument, I can only assume that you understand all the logical requirements your argument has, and that you simply didn’t want to give the appearance that you don’t believe the woman owns herself when she’s pregnant.
And you keep spewing irrelevant garbage as a result. Not my problem that you’re completely unwilling to address reality.
And this is one of them, since the woman owns her womb.
Unless, of course, you don’t believe that the woman owns her womb when she’s pregnant.
Address that.
Wrong. You have explicitly denied that the woman owns her womb when she’s pregnant.
That you have; you just erroneously think she’s guilty of murder.
What is your definition of rational potentiality and when does it begin? If the point begins in the womb then I would assume from that point forward you would agree with me.
Fair enough I will assume he speaks for you.
Let’s try helping you understand. Does the woman own her womb? Yes or no?
Does the baby own itself? yes or no?
Let’s start there.
My answer to both questions is yes.
I’m not interested in offering one but that doesn’t mean your ‘definition’ is correct.
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but…Are you seriously advocating execution for women aborting their fetuses ? You don’t realize that’s wholly absurd ?
Not really. I’m simply following your premises. In the vast majority of cases there would hardly be any evidence…unless some massive surveillance scheme is put in place - which is an idea just as absurd as the death penalty for abortion.
Yes, let’s try helping you understand.
Does the woman own her womb when she’s pregnant? Yes or no.
If you say yes, you’ve admitted that your argument is rubbish. If you say no, you admit that you’re for slavery. Which will it be?
Development of the foetus to the point where the capacity for rational potentiality comes into place, i.e. the development of the cerebral cortex if I am correct. Before this, it is a lump of flesh and no more. This merely gets past one objection, BTW. It still does not answer all the other possible problems that may exist, i.e. what sort of responsibilities might accrue to a being which cannot even be contracted with.
Assume that he speaks for himself, and that I agree with his responses to you.
-Jon
Do we agree that life starts at some point? At whatever point that you would agree it starts then the human life has rights after that point, true? So the question is the starting point. Which is the original question I proposed. I have an answer for it and all the pro-abortion people do not. So until the pro-abortion people can specify when life begins they can’t argue that I am not correct.
Let’s suppose I argued that life didn’t start until age two and so anybody could kill someone under the age of two since they weren’t human yet. Would that be acceptable…i hope your answer is no…so the atarting point matters a great deal. This is of course why no one in the pro-abortion group can provide an answer. The pro-abortion arguements for when life begins are either logically inconsistent or so horrific that it would appear insane.
I have already answered the question. It is you who can not answer the question.
Then you admit your argument is rubbish. Thanks much.