There is nothing to prove. We can not agree on the underlying assumptions about the creation of life or what responsibilites people have. The matter can only be settled by violence. There is no middle ground.
I can not accept the murder and molestation of children no matter how you much you think you can “prove” that it is acceptable.
Abortion is a state sponsored activity. Without state support and protections abortions would be considered illegal in free societies virtually everywhere. It is simply not part of our natural psyche to routinely kill and harm children contrary to what you think you can “prove”.
Yes, there is. Don’t try to cop-out, Max. I. Will. Not. Tolerate. It.
Now prove that “be[ing] responsible” does not include abortion.
Yeah, I know why you don’t want to do it; it’s because you know that your warped definition has been outed and you can’t support it. You know that there’s nothing in the definition which precludes abortion, and you’re going to try everything you can to avoid your burden. I won’t let that happen. I will keep on you and keep on you until you finally either concede that you’re wrong or you make the attempt. Either way: I win.
Oh–I cannot accept the enslavement of women, no matter how much you think it is acceptable.
Prove it.
Prove it.
And prove that it is part of our natural psyche to routinely enslave women. Go for it, Max. Remember: I will hammer you until you concede or put up. Your choice, little one.
Abortion is not unique to the state, just as theft is not unique to the state.
Abortion would occur with or without the state, even if you had some beloved Liberty Inquisition that went around & burned people’s houses down for voluntarily having abortions regardless of what majority opinion may or may not be in this “free society”.
Now, if you want to have delusions of grandeur, & get together with others to form a community and/or social reality where abortion is “illegal”, “unthinkable”, & “outlawed”, go right ahead, as long as you don’t coerce other communities who either don’t give a crap or explicitly endorse abortion.
To say that a certain preference is going to be dominant in the free-society, based upon one’s given preferences, is parody and this is a good example of such.
What do you think? I don’t think somebody could even call it “obtuse”. Could somebody say this is a purposeful ruse - maybe - to make what he calls a “fact” be a “fact”. In other words, to prove rape is invited and is in accord with the “facts” as he says. Obviously the whole judgement of this “rape” is thrown out the window by him into a mere biological fact of invitation. “Obtuse”, nah, ruse to propel rape’s into voluntary acts “invited” by the mother in the form of a child? I know my answer.
There is nothing to prove because we can not agree on the underlying assumptions. You assume that the fetus is not human by your definition. I assume it is. You do not believe people have any obligation to care for people they invite/take under their care, i believe they do. You believe it is impossible for a woman to invite pregnancy, I disagree. Those different assumptions make it impossible for you to “prove” to me or I to you.
The history of the human species argues against you because we know what the function of reproductive organs are, to reproduce. Contrary to what Jack and you say that we are unclear what the function of reproductive organs are the human species has very little doubt that reproductive organs are for reproduction. Our own human biology argues against your parasite theory of the baby as trespasser, the egg originates in the mother, the woman’s body actively protects the implanted egg, we as a species are instinctively protective of pregnant women. All of this is evidence that the human species thinks differently than your personal death worship theory.
What view as enslavement, I and humanity, view as responsibility. The human species is just not engineered to accept the murder and molestation of children as permissable human behaviour no matter how much you, Jack and Spidey think you have proven it. Your theory just doesn’t apply to the human species.
The active encouragement and protection of abortion by the state is well established. Until your beloved state started started protecting it, child murder via abortion was shunned in every part of the world. It of course still occurred but not on the levels we see today. It is no coincidence that the Nazi’s invented various forms of abortions. The state, just like you have a vested interest in dehumanization.
Again, what you view as enslavement, I and 99.9% of the population view as responsibility. No matter how much you say it is ok to kill and molest children it still won’t be.
You sure talk tough for a guy who still lives with his parents and isn’t even responsible for taking care of himself. No wonder the idea of responsibility seems so foreign to you.
The point is that humans have the same rights, regardless of the circumstances of their creation. A human baby created by rape is no less human than a baby created by the desired efforts of the parents. The implantation process is not different because the egg fertilized by an act of rape. Obviously, your in denial of that simple fact.
I can’t speak for the others, but I’ve stated quite clearly that I believe the fetus is possessing all of the rights of an adult human. It is possible for a woman to engage in intercourse with the hopes of having a child. It is impossible for a woman to invite the child to be implanted. An invitation, by every single possible definition, is a voluntary act, while the implantation is an involuntary act. This is a biological fact. If you disagree with it, your are demonstrably wrong. Proven wrong.
The history of the human species most certainly disagrees with you. Sex is for pleasure. Reproduction is a side effect. If this were not true, there would be no birth control, no abortions, no oral sex, no hand jobs, no masturbation, and no homosexuality. Much more often than not, people use their sexual organs for pleasure. Evolution shows us that those who feel pleasure during sex have a tendency to have sex more often, leading them to reproduce more, making pleasurable sex a dominant feature in the species. See that? Sex feeling good causes reproduction.
The “egg” is not a fetus. It is not a human. It has no rights. After fertilization, that’s a different story, but then it’s not an egg anymore. I find it interesting, in a pitiful sort of way, that you equate instinct with thinking. I certainly don’t worship death, by the way.
You claim to speak for humanity, but your point of view is held by a tiny, infetesmal percent of the population at large. I agree, by the way, that the murder and molestation of children is impermissible. I also hold that the murder and molestation of tresspassers and stowaways is also impermissible.
Do you have anything to back that number up? I would guess, world wide, 60-70% of people think abortion should be legal in many cases, and well over 90% in the case of rape and when the health of the mother is threatened. You are a member of a itsy bitsy teeny tiny minority.
Until them, it was either too medically risky, or outright banned by the state throughout most of the world. Once medical advances made it possible, and the state relaxed its restrictions, it became pretty common.
And last, thank you for proving Godwin’s Law. Many would argue that by doing so, you’ve just automatically lost the argument.
The sperm uses acid to destroy the egg’s wall. Of course you can say the egg was made to be destroyed. But this focus on the facts forgets that a woman has choice of her own property. The fetus is not her property as you correctly point out the fetus has it’s own right - I agree with that and have noted this earlier in the thread. But the mother having the fetus leave from her property does nothing to the property and thus rights of the fetus. It is nature that kills the fetus when it exits the womb in an abortion. You countered this with a boating example in which the guest could be asked to leave while in the middle of the ocean cause it’s not the guests boat. I ask what boat does this so I don’t go on it in the first place.
a paper contract? cause two friends don’t make paper contracts, but then again it’s assumed that coming back came up somewhere in the conversation. yet what if it didn’t?
I understand that one, but I was talking about two supposed friends. So no money transaction.
Edit: of course these lifeboat scenarios are set-up to show how nasty a person is, so, the vice is on the supposed friend asking his buddy or gal to leave the boat into the middle of the ocean. And these usually make rights look terrible, but in essence it’s really the vice of the supposed friend that is terrible. I would say a mishandling of ones own property for vice ends.
Yes, there is, little one. You will not be allowed to cop-out. Prove that the definition of “be[ing] responsible” precludes abortion. Now. Put up or shut up, Max.
No, it doesn’t. There’s never been a definition of “be[ing] responsible” which precludes abortion. Put up or shut up, Max.
No, humanity does not, for there has NEVER been a definition of “be[ing] responsible” which precludes abortion. Put up or shut up, Max.
And it’s not logically necessary. Now prove your case.
Remember: enslavement is a state-sponsored activity. It’s no coincidence that the Nazis enslaved untold numbers to toil for them. Yeah–you want to play that game, Max? I’ll one-up you every time. You cannot win, Max.
Prove it. Prove that the definition of “be[ing] responsible” precludes abortion. You don’t get to make blatant assertions. And you don’t get to try to smear me, either. So you had better watch yourself, Max. It will not be tolerated.
Edit: of course these lifeboat scenarios are set-up to show how nasty a person is, so, the vice is on the supposed friend asking his buddy or gal to leave the boat into the middle of the ocean. And these usually make rights look terrible, but in essence it’s really the vice(?) of the supposed friend that is terrible(?) {might be a virtue perceptually dependent}. But it’s not murder. It’s nature that could kill the friend. He went out on a boat with somebody that didn’t want him or her around anymore.
Yes, they do. And the woman has the right of self-ownership. Which means: she can remove the fetus from her womb if she wants. Unless, of course, she no longer owns herself. I know–you’ll cry “responsibility”. But that just invalidates self-ownership, which is impossible. So Max–why are you trying to have your cake and eat it, too?
Fight the good fight.