Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Abortion debate thread

1…5051535556…59

Comments

  • #1562
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    Ok. When can you kill another human being or another person?

    Are you even thinking these questions through before you post them. :rolleyes:

    There are a number of situations where it is morally acceptable to kill another person, one of which is if the other person is accessing your internal body without consent.

    Are you saying that if a woman is being raped by a man she has no right to use methods to stop him raping her if such methods put him are risk or might kill him?

    The fetus is using the woman's womb. Because it is the woman's womb, it is her internal organ, the woman must consent to this at all points that that the fetus is using the womb.

    If she doesn't she has the right to take any measures necessary to stop the fetus using her womb, even if said methods put the fetus at risk or kill the fetus.

    You seem to have no rebuttal to that point.


  • #1563
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Are you even thinking these questions through before you post them. :rolleyes:

    Yes
    Zombrex wrote: »
    There are a number of situations where it is morally acceptable to kill another person, one of which is if the other person is accessing your internal body without consent.

    How do you kill them?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Are you saying that if a woman is being raped by a man she has no right to use methods to stop him raping her if such methods put him are risk or might kill him?

    she has every right to defend herself from the rapist even if her methods kill him.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The fetus is using the woman's womb. Because it is the woman's womb, it is her internal organ, the woman must consent to this at all points that that the fetus is using the womb.

    The baby is living in her uterus, that is the way it works. The purpose of the uterus is to provide a safe place for the baby to grow.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    If she doesn't she has the right to take any measures necessary to stop the fetus using her womb, even if said methods put the fetus at risk or kill the fetus.

    Are you calling the baby a rapist?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You seem to have no rebuttal to that point.

    Really? You make that statement before I have had the chance to reply? Who are you? Enda Kenny? Alan Shatter?

    If you are going to use the self defence argument for when one person can kill another then you have to make the case for the baby in the uterus being his mothers attacker to the point that she must use lethal force in defence.

    All you did was equate a baby with a rapist.


  • #1564
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    she has every right to defend herself from the rapist even if her methods kill him.

    So when you asked "When can you kill another person" you already knew the answer to that question... So why ask the question?
    Festus wrote: »
    The baby is living in her uterus, that is the way it works. The purpose of the uterus is to provide a safe place for the baby to grow.

    The "purpose" of the vagina is to receive a man's penis. What's your point?
    Festus wrote: »
    Are you calling the baby a rapist?

    Given that the baby isn't raping the woman, why would I call the baby a rapist?
    Festus wrote: »
    Really? You make that statement before I have had the chance to reply?

    You have had tons of replies, none of them have attempted to rebut this point. That to me would suggest you have no rebuttal. If you did you would simply present it rather than asking a whole host of irrelevant and nonsensical questions.

    You will notice you still haven't rebutted it.
    Festus wrote: »
    If you are going to use the self defence argument for when one person can kill another then you have to make the case for the baby in the uterus being his mothers attacker to the point that she must use lethal force in defence.

    If the fetus is in the woman's womb without consent the fetus is by definition attacking the woman, in exactly the same way me sticking my hand up your arse without you letting me stick my hand up your arse is me attacking you.

    The mother cannot use unnecessary excessive force to remove the fetus from her womb. If it is not necessary to kill the fetus to remove it from her womb in a safe fashion that does not put her at risk then she cannot kill the fetus. That is the same as saying you have the right to get my hand out of your arse but not the right to kill me if it isn't necessary to achieve that.

    She can though take all necessary methods to remove the fetus. If the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb that is the fetus' problem. If the fetus cannot be removed without the procedure killing it, that is the fetus' problem.
    Festus wrote: »
    All you did was equate a baby with a rapist.

    :rolleyes:

    Once again you have no serious response to this. If you did you wouldn't be wasting time with this silliness.


  • #1565
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So when you asked "When can you kill another person" you already knew the answer to that question... So why ask the question?

    To see what your response would be :rolleyes:

    Zombrex wrote: »
    The "purpose" of the vagina is to receive a man's penis. What's your point?

    This is not it's only purpose. My point is to see how well you understand biology.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Given that the baby isn't raping the woman, why would I call the baby a rapist?

    Given that the baby is not raping the woman why would you kill it?

    Zombrex wrote: »
    You have had tons of replies, none of them have attempted to rebut this point. That to me would suggest you have no rebuttal. If you did you would simply present it rather than asking a whole host of irrelevant and nonsensical questions.

    You will notice you still haven't rebutted it.

    You are very impatient.



    Zombrex wrote: »
    If the fetus is in the woman's womb without consent the fetus is by definition attacking the woman, in exactly the same way me sticking my hand up your arse without you letting me stick my hand up your arse is me attacking you.

    No it's not. if hte baby is in the womans uterus it is because her body has given consent to the pregnancy even if her mind did not. That is nowhere near being exactly the same as being attacked by another being. You cannot equate an invasion of one body by another with a being who came into existence within the organ you are saying it invaded. Invasion starts at the outside. Conception happens within.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The mother cannot use unnecessary excessive force to remove the fetus from her womb. If it is not necessary to kill the fetus to remove it from her womb in a safe fashion that does not put her at risk then she cannot kill the fetus. That is the same as saying you have the right to get my hand out of your arse but not the right to kill me if it isn't necessary to achieve that.



    She can though take all necessary methods to remove the fetus. If the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb that is the fetus' problem. If the fetus cannot be removed without the procedure killing it, that is the fetus' problem.

    Not true. If the woman insists on having the baby removed when it cannot survive it is no different to her thrown her post birth baby out on the street.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Once again you have no serious response to this. If you did you wouldn't be wasting time with this silliness.

    See above. I think you will find responses


  • #1566
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If she doesn't she has the right to take any measures necessary to stop the fetus using her womb, even if said methods put the fetus at risk or kill the fetus.

    You seem to have no rebuttal to that point.

    What is the purpose of the womb or uterus?

    What is the purpose of the lungs? Does anyone have right to have the air surgically removed from their lungs if they so wish?

    What is the purpose of the stomach? Does anyone have the right to have the food surgically removed from their stomach if they so wish?

    What is the purpose of the veins? Does anyone have the right to have the blood surgically removed from their veins if they so wish?

    you argue "bodily integrity" without so much as a nod to the "bodily integrity" of the organ in question.

    A baby no more violates the integrity of the uterus than air violates the integrity of the lungs, food the stomach or blood the veins.

    The purpose of the lungs involves air, the purpose of the stomach involves food, the purpose of the veins involves blood, and the purpose of the uterus involves... babies.

    Not only that but you persist in arguing bodily integrity for yourself and women while agreeing that the "fetus" as you call it is another person or human being yet refuse to acknowledge that it is entitled to it's own bodily integrity.

    Either all persons are equal and have equal rights to life and bodily integrity or they do not.


  • Advertisement
  • #1567
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    To see what your response would be :rolleyes:
    Why? You know there are legitimate cases for killing someone. I know there are legitimate cases for killing someone. What were you attempting to demonstrate?
    Festus wrote: »
    This is not it's only purpose. My point is to see how well you understand biology.
    I understand biology very well. I'm not sure what you think that gives you as a rebuttal to the argument of bodily integrity.
    Festus wrote: »
    Given that the baby is not raping the woman why would you kill it?
    Because it is inside the woman using the woman's womb without the woman's consent and killing it would be the only way to remove it from the woman's womb.

    What other reason is there?
    Festus wrote: »
    You are very impatient.
    I think I'm being very patient. I'm putting up with this nonsense aren't I?

    And you still haven't attempted a rebuttal. I suspect because you haven't thought of one yet.
    Festus wrote: »
    No it's not.

    Yes it is.
    Festus wrote: »
    Not true. If the woman insists on having the baby removed when it cannot survive it is no different to her thrown her post birth baby out on the street.

    If that was the case then it should be easy for you to point out what aspect of bodily integrity is restored in the woman by the woman throwing her post birth baby out on the street?

    Can you do that (obviously you can't but I find it easier for you to arrive at that conclusion on your own steam)
    Festus wrote: »
    See above. I think you will find responses

    I see responses, but then I actually asked for a rebuttal.


  • #1568
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is a pretty simple question. You are claiming that once a woman consents to the foetus using her body she cannot change her mind. I'm asking if that applies to me consenting to my doctor performing an operation on my body?

    As I have already said your arguments are irrelevant. More ot the point they are inconguous and juvenile. you seem to think that a surgical consent form is a legally binding document, or at least are presenting it as such. it is no such thing. It is document that you sign to indicate that you understand the procedure you are about to undergo.
    You can refuse the procedure later if you really want to but it does put your mental capacity in question.


    You have also suggested I have no rebuttal to your bodily integrity argument.

    Well, I have and have posted at lease one. As far as bodily integrity is concerned in this jurisdiction it applies to you personhood and not having it interferred with. This applies equally to unborn persons as born persons.

    The rebuttal to any and all of you "bodily integrity" arguments is as you have already stated - the baby is another person and as such is entitled to its own bodily integrity.

    when you examine the purpose of the uterus there is no bodily integrity argument from removing the baby from a healty uterus any more that there is an argument for willingly having all the blood removed from healthy veins.


  • #1569
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the womb or uterus?

    Too numerous to mention here, and irrelevant to the point. I'm not sure if you are asking that question in a vain attempt to make some sort of point, or if you genuinely don't know what the womb is for. Perhaps clear that up and I can attempt to provide a suitable response.
    Festus wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the lungs? Does anyone have right to have the air surgically removed from their lungs if they so wish?

    If they wish. For example military deep sea divers occasionally use fluid for breathing (as demonstrated some what inaccurately in the movie "The Abyss")
    Festus wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the stomach? Does anyone have the right to have the food surgically removed from their stomach if they so wish?

    Again I'm at a loss as to whether you actually don't know the answers to these questions, or if you are attempting to make a point. If you are attempting to make a point I'm at a loss as to what point that is given that people do have the right to remove food from the stomach and very often do.
    Festus wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the veins? Does anyone have the right to have the blood surgically removed from their veins if they so wish?

    Yes, it is called blood transfusions.
    Festus wrote: »
    you argue "bodily integrity" without so much as a nod to the "bodily integrity" of the organ in question.

    The right to bodily integrity of the fetus is unchanged.

    Festus wrote: »
    A baby no more violates the integrity of the uterus than air violates the integrity of the lungs, food the stomach or blood the veins.

    If someone was forced to keep air in their lungs, food in their stomach or blood in their veins their bodily integrity would be violated.

    Which is why you cannot throw someone into a room of CO2, force feed someone toccos for a year or hook someone to have a blood transfusion kit without consent.

    Again you really really really should think about the "points" you are trying to make before you post, because you are just looking silly and ignorant at this point.
    Festus wrote: »
    The purpose of the lungs involves air, the purpose of the stomach involves food, the purpose of the veins involves blood, and the purpose of the uterus involves... babies.

    Because we eat doesn't mean I can force feed you. Because we breath doesn't mean I can force air into your lungs. Because we use blood doesn't mean I can force blood into your veins.

    Because women have babies doesn't mean you can force a woman to have a baby.

    This is ethics 101. Please please please think before you post. You are wasting so much time with this nonsense.
    Festus wrote: »
    Not only that but you persist in arguing bodily integrity for yourself and women while agreeing that the "fetus" as you call it is another person or human being yet refuse to acknowledge that it is entitled to it's own bodily integrity.

    The fetus has all the rights to bodily integrity you I or the woman does. The woman can do nothing to the fetus beyond what is necessary to remove the fetus from her womb, just like you can do nothing to an attacker other than what is necessary to stop them attacking you.
    Festus wrote: »
    Either all persons are equal and have equal rights to life and bodily integrity or they do not.

    Again the woman and the fetus have the same right to bodily integrity. If the woman was in the fetus' womb the fetus could do what ever it wanted to remove the woman.


  • #1570
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Why? You know there are legitimate cases for killing someone. I know there are legitimate cases for killing someone. What were you attempting to demonstrate?

    That there is no legitimate case for killing an innocent person.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    I understand biology very well. I'm not sure what you think that gives you as a rebuttal to the argument of bodily integrity.

    I never said it did. My rebuttal is elsewhere.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Because it is inside the woman using the woman's womb without the woman's consent and killing it would be the only way to remove it from the woman's womb.

    MAke your mind up. Either it can be removed without killing it or it cannot be removed without killing it. Do you ever read your own posts?



    Zombrex wrote: »
    I think I'm being very patient. I'm putting up with this nonsense aren't I?

    Actually you are not being very patient at all. As for it being nonesense you should see what I have to put up with.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    And you still haven't attempted a rebuttal. I suspect because you haven't thought of one yet.


    I'm begining to understand now. You just don't bother reading any other posts, particulary those you don't like.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes it is.

    please yourself.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    If that was the case then it should be easy for you to point out what aspect of bodily integrity is restored in the woman by the woman throwing her post birth baby out on the street?

    I don't agree with that action either so why should I?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Can you do that (obviously you can't but I find it easier for you to arrive at that conclusion on your own steam)

    Actually I can but I can't be bothered telling you.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    I see responses, but then I actually asked for a rebuttal.

    And you got one.


  • #1571
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    As I have already said your arguments are irrelevant. More ot the point they are inconguous and juvenile. you seem to think that a surgical consent form is a legally binding document, or at least are presenting it as such. it is no such thing. It is document that you sign to indicate that you understand the procedure you are about to undergo.
    You can refuse the procedure later if you really want to but it does put your mental capacity in question.

    What are you talking about? I never said it puts your mental capacity in question?

    The whole point is agreeing to something at point A in time does not condemn you to going through with it if you change your mind at a later point. Even if a woman wants the baby when she has sex doesn't mean she cannot change her mind afterwards.
    Festus wrote: »
    You have also suggested I have no rebuttal to your bodily integrity argument.

    Well, I have and have posted at lease one.
    No you haven't, you have just posted a series of long rambling irrelevant questions.
    Festus wrote: »
    The rebuttal to any and all of you "bodily integrity" arguments is as you have already stated - the baby is another person and as such is entitled to its own bodily integrity.

    It is mind boggling how confused your post is. You are rebutting the concept of bodily integrity by saying the fetus has the same right to bodily integrity?

    How is that a rebuttal? If both the woman and the baby are entitled to bodily integrity then since the baby is inside the woman the woman can remove the baby. And if the woman was inside the baby the baby could remove the woman.

    Or to put it another way, you cannot take your child's organs to use them for yourself, any more than your child can use your organs.

    The fetus is using the woman's womb. If you recognize the right to bodily integrity (which you apparently do and don't at the same time), since the fetus does not own the womb the fetus must have consent from the woman to use the womb and if it doesn't have consent it can be removed.

    You claim to recognize that right to bodily integrity, but your argument is that the fetus the same right. Ok, yes it does. The woman cannot use the fetus's womb without the fetus consent either.

    What point do you think that gets you? :rolleyes:
    Festus wrote: »
    when you examine the purpose of the uterus there is no bodily integrity argument from removing the baby from a healty uterus any more that there is an argument for willingly having all the blood removed from healthy veins.

    People regularly remove blood from their veins. I can't believe you don't know that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1572
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    That there is no legitimate case for killing an innocent person.

    So if someone was sleep walking and started attacking you you would have to just sit there and not defend yourself because the person wouldn't understand what they were doing and thus would be "innocent"

    Please please please stop and think before you post. :rolleyes:
    Festus wrote: »
    MAke your mind up. Either it can be removed without killing it or it cannot be removed without killing it. Do you ever read your own posts?

    What? Whether it can be removed without killing it is an assessment for the doctor. Women remove babies from their wombs all the time without killing it
    Festus wrote: »
    Actually you are not being very patient at all. As for it being nonesense you should see what I have to put up with.

    I'm sorry, do you need a little bit more time to learn that people regularly give blood transfusions and remove food from their stomachs :rolleyes:
    Festus wrote: »
    I'm begining to understand now. You just don't bother reading any other posts, particulary those you don't like.

    Says the guy who has still not attempted a rebuttal to the point of bodily integrity other than to say the fetus should also have the right to bodily integrity (which it does)
    Festus wrote: »
    I don't agree with that action either so why should I?

    Whether you agree with it or not it should be easy to point out the violation of bodily integrity that is restored. Unless of course the latter has nothing to do with a violation of bodily integrity
    Festus wrote: »
    Actually I can but I can't be bothered telling you.

    Lol .. yes and I'm the one not being patient ...
    Festus wrote: »
    And you got one.

    Yes the rebuttal to bodily integrity where you argued the fetus should have the right to bodily integrity :rolleyes:

    What is a rebuttal to the self defense argument? Well to argue that your attacker should have the right to self defense of course!

    What is the rebuttal to the rape is bad argument? Well to argue that your rapists should have the right not to be raped of course!

    There isn't a face palm gif suitable enough for this little exchange of ours. It makes me very confident that abortion will so be available in this country if this is the standard of argument and debate of the anti-abortion side.


  • #1573
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Too numerous to mention here, and irrelevant to the point. I'm not sure if you are asking that question in a vain attempt to make some sort of point, or if you genuinely don't know what the womb is for. Perhaps clear that up and I can attempt to provide a suitable response.

    I would like you to demonstrate your knowledge of biology seeing as you claim to have some and also because in an abortion debate the uterus is relevant. Perhaps you think the uterus is irrelevant and it that is the case what are you doing here?

    Zombrex wrote: »
    If they wish. For example military deep sea divers occasionally use fluid for breathing (as demonstrated some what inaccurately in the movie "The Abyss")

    Actually the air is not removed, it is replaced. I'm talking about it being removed and nothing being put back in. Perhaps you think you are in a different thread so I'll help you. In an abortion a baby is removed from the uterus, a place designed for growing babies. My point is equating that with removing air from the lungs, a place that should have air in it to do its job. In an abortion nothing is put back in to replace the baby.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again I'm at a loss as to whether you actually don't know the answers to these questions, or if you are attempting to make a point. If you are attempting to make a point I'm at a loss as to what point that is given that people do have the right to remove food from the stomach and very often do.

    The point is to examine your understanding of the purpose of the organ at a fundamental level, not to explore your expertise at evasion and obfuscation when someone gives you an argument you cannot answer.
    basically healthy people do not volounteer to have their organs interferred with in a manner that is contrary to the purpose of said organ. the stomach is designed to have food in it for a period of time is the same way that a uterus is designed to have a baby in it for a period of time. In the normal run of things people do not go around asking for the food they consented to having in their stomachs be removed before the digestive process has been completed.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes, it is called blood transfusions.

    No, as above I'm talking about it being removed and not replaced. I can see you are having difficult with intelligent argument. Perhaps you should go lie down somewhere.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    The right to bodily integrity of the fetus is unchanged.

    So you accept that the baby has the right to bodily integrity? Under what circumstances can this be interferred with?
    have I misunderstood and are you really pro-life and anti-abortion?


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If someone was forced to keep air in their lungs, food in their stomach or blood in their veins their bodily integrity would be violated.

    Equally if the baby was forced to stay in the uterus for longer than intended there would be a case for bodily integrity being violated.

    I might be wrong in your mind but I think you have just rebutted yourself.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Which is why you cannot throw someone into a room of CO2, force feed someone toccos for a year or hook someone to have a blood transfusion kit without consent.

    And equally why you cannot remove a baby from a healthy uterus.

    By the way, there are times when you have to put people in rooms with a higher content of CO2 than normal and hook people up to dialysis machines even if they don't like it but I guess you don't like those arguments.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again you really really really should think about the "points" you are trying to make before you post, because you are just looking silly and ignorant at this point.

    pot black kettle calling

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Because we eat doesn't mean I can force feed you. Because we breath doesn't mean I can force air into your lungs. Because we use blood doesn't mean I can force blood into your veins.

    There are times when these things are possible, hunger strikers, drowning people, trauma victims etc come to mind but again my argument was about removing things, not forcing them in. When you go and change what other posters say to suit your argument it makes you look like... well we're supposed to attack the post and not the poster so please, and I ask nicely, try to deal with what I posted and not what you wanted me to post.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Because women have babies doesn't mean you can force a woman to have a baby.

    no one is saying that. What is being said is that abortion is not an option because murdering children is wrong. Morally and ethically
    Zombrex wrote: »
    This is ethics 101. Please please please think before you post. You are wasting so much time with this nonsense.

    I hope it's your time I'm wasting because it is not my time I'm wasting.
    As for ethics - you're not much good at that either.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    The fetus has all the rights to bodily integrity you I or the woman does. The woman can do nothing to the fetus beyond what is necessary to remove the fetus from her womb, just like you can do nothing to an attacker other than what is necessary to stop them attacking you.

    I can stop an attacker without killing them. Question now is if a baby is removed from the uterus when viable what are you going to do with it?
    You also have to explain how the baby is attacking the woman for your argument to hold water.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again the woman and the fetus have the same right to bodily integrity. If the woman was in the fetus' womb the fetus could do what ever it wanted to remove the woman.

    and you think that is a sensible argument. :rolleyes:

    You really should step away from the keyboard before you do yourself any more damage.


  • #1574
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    I would like you to demonstrate your knowledge of biology seeing as you claim to have some and also because in an abortion debate the uterus is relevant. Perhaps you think the uterus is irrelevant and it that is the case what are you doing here?

    The uterus is not irrelevant. The presence of the fetus in the woman's uterus is the entire justification for abortion, abortion being the removal of the fetus from the woman's uterus.
    Festus wrote: »
    So you accept that the baby has the right to bodily integrity? Under what circumstances can this be interferred with?

    It can be interfered with when the baby is violating some else. In the same way that someone's right to life can be interfered with when they are attacking you.

    Once the fetus is out of the woman and is no longer violating the woman's bodily integrity the woman has no more right to do anything to the fetus's bodily integrity, in the same way you have no more right to do anything to an attacker once you have stopped them attacking you.

    If the fetus was not in the woman's womb using the woman's womb without the woman's consent the woman' would have no right to do anything to the fetus.

    Which is (again) why you cannot simply take your child's organs because you need them. The right to abortion is not a right over the babies body, it is merely the right to remove the babies' body from your body by what ever means are necessary.
    Festus wrote: »
    Equally if the baby was forced to stay in the uterus for longer than intended there would be a case for bodily integrity being violated.
    Yes.
    Festus wrote: »
    I might be wrong in your mind but I think you have just rebutted yourself.

    My argument is that the woman owns her womb and that no one can do anything with it without her consent and she has the right to stop, with force if necessary, anyone including her child from using it without her consent, and that this is a fundamental right of bodily integrity

    Where have rebutted myself
    Festus wrote: »
    And equally why you cannot remove a baby from a healthy uterus.
    You cannot remove a baby from a healthy uterus without the consent of the owner of he uterus or the consent of the baby.

    Which is why you can no more ethically force a woman to have an abortion than ban a woman from having an abortion.
    Festus wrote: »
    I can stop an attacker without killing them.
    You can also remove a fetus from your uterus without killing it, millions of women do this every year. Its called giving birth.
    Festus wrote: »
    Question now is if a baby is removed from the uterus when viable what are you going to do with it?

    What ever one does with a new baby. Wrap it in a blanket I guess.
    Festus wrote: »
    You also have to explain how the baby is attacking the woman for your argument to hold water.

    The baby is inside the woman's body, inside her womb, without the woman's consent. Explain how someone being inside someone else's body without their consent isn't an attack on that person.


  • #1575
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So if someone was sleep walking and started attacking you you would have to just sit there and not defend yourself because the person wouldn't understand what they were doing and thus would be "innocent"

    Please please please stop and think before you post. :rolleyes:

    I think you should. There is no need to kill a sleepwalker. If they were that good at attacking you you would be dead or seriously disabled.
    However, if it ever went to court and it can be demonstrated that the attack was viable then I belive the self defence argument would hold. If you are under attack you have the right to defend yourself. Babies in the uterus do not attack.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    What? Whether it can be removed without killing it is an assessment for the doctor. Women remove babies from their wombs all the time without killing it

    Actually I think you will find it is the doctor - usually and obstretician that does the removing, not the mother.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'm sorry, do you need a little bit more time to learn that people regularly give blood transfusions and remove food from their stomachs :rolleyes:

    no but you seem to need time to learn comprehension and to argue what is presented and not what you imagine has been presented. Thank you for presenting again your inability to understand the points presented and your propensity for twisting what has been presented.


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Says the guy who has still not attempted a rebuttal to the point of bodily integrity other than to say the fetus should also have the right to bodily integrity (which it does)

    I have presented a rebuttal. Your point? Ah yes, to prove my point.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Whether you agree with it or not it should be easy to point out the violation of bodily integrity that is restored. Unless of course the latter has nothing to do with a violation of bodily integrity

    Sleeping late, drinking, sociallising. Doesn't really matter as you again avoiding arguing the point you have lost.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Lol .. yes and I'm the one not being patient ...

    Thank you for your confirmation

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes the rebuttal to bodily integrity where you argued the fetus should have the right to bodily integrity

    Above you state there is no rebuttal but here you state there is a rebuttal.:rolleyes:
    Zombrex wrote: »
    What is a rebuttal to the self defense argument? Well to argue that your attacker should have the right to self defense of course!

    If you cease to be the defender and become the attacker this is true. So yes if your defense is such that it would endanger your attacker he has the right to defend himself. We're in the area of equality arguments now I think.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    What is the rebuttal to the rape is bad argument? Well to argue that your rapists should have the right not to be raped of course!

    Rapists have the right not to be raped. The problem here is I don't see how you got that I said that. But the fact is that rapists have the right to bodily integrity when they are not raping. And yes they have the right to defend themselves from rape. I think that's called equality.

    It might help if you posted what you think I posted alongside your response to what you imaging I posted so I can keep up with your fantasy.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    There isn't a face palm gif suitable enough for this little exchange of ours. It makes me very confident that abortion will so be available in this country if this is the standard of argument and debate of the anti-abortion side.

    It's 00:45 and I'm running on 4 hrs sleep in the last 48hrs.

    That said I enjoy using people like you to see what arguments you have. I'm not going to bring the big guns to bear on you because quite honestly you do not present any real challenge but it is useful to see what arguments you and your kind are prepared to use.


  • #1576
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Festus wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the womb or uterus?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Too numerous to mention here, and irrelevant to the point.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The uterus is not irrelevant. The presence of the fetus in the woman's uterus is the entire justification for abortion, abortion being the removal of the fetus from the woman's uterus.

    I do wish you would make some class of a coherent argument.:rolleyes:

    Zombrex wrote: »
    It can be interfered with when the baby is violating some else. In the same way that someone's right to life can be interfered with when they are attacking you.

    babies don't violate someone else. A baby growing in a womans uterus is not the same as someone attacking you.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Once the fetus is out of the woman and is no longer violating the woman's bodily integrity the woman has no more right to do anything to the fetus's bodily integrity, in the same way you have no more right to do anything to an attacker once you have stopped them attacking you.

    A baby in the uterus is not violating the womans bodily integrity. It is doing what nature intended it to do in the place nature intended it to do it.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    If the fetus was not in the woman's womb using the woman's womb without the woman's consent the woman' would have no right to do anything to the fetus.

    but the womans womb gave its consent because if it didn't the baby would not be there.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Which is (again) why you cannot simply take your child's organs because you need them.

    when did I say it could?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The right to abortion is not a right over the babies body, it is merely the right to remove the babies' body from your body by what ever means are necessary.

    again you are wrong. and you didn't answer the question. No surprise there then.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes.

    and that is the only case. anything else isn't

    Zombrex wrote: »
    My argument is that the woman owns her womb and that no one can do anything with it without her consent and she has the right to stop, with force if necessary, anyone including her child from using it without her consent, and that this is a fundamental right of bodily integrity

    The purpose of the uterus is to provide a place to grow a baby. Stopping it from doing that is a violation of the integrity of the uterus.
    The uterus gives consent to the baby growing there. So you are arguing that the woman has the right to interfere with her own bodies right to bodily integrity.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Where have rebutted myself

    back there.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    You cannot remove a baby from a healthy uterus without the consent of the owner of he uterus or the consent of the baby.

    How do you get the consent of the baby?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Which is why you can no more ethically force a woman to have an abortion than ban a woman from having an abortion.

    it is not ethical to force a woman to have an abortion but it is ethical and indeed moral to ban a woman from having an abortion because abortion interferes with the bodily integrity of the child, or person as you have stated.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You can also remove a fetus from your uterus without killing it, millions of women do this every year. Its called giving birth.

    they would be what is called viable babies

    Zombrex wrote: »
    What ever one does with a new baby. Wrap it in a blanket I guess.

    your kindness and generosity knows no bounds. No thoughts to cleaning it or feeding it?

    Zombrex wrote: »
    The baby is inside the woman's body, inside her womb, without the woman's consent. Explain how someone being inside someone else's body without their consent isn't an attack on that person.

    As I have said on numerous occasions it is not an attack because the uterus gave its consent. It is only doing what it is designed to do - nuturing new life.


  • #1577
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is a pretty simple question. You are claiming that once a woman consents to the foetus using her body she cannot change her mind. I'm asking if that applies to me consenting to my doctor performing an operation on my body?

    they're not the same thing. Your body is your body. A women with a baby inside her comprises two bodies. Two persons each with the same equal right to life and bodily integrity.


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So if it was about someone else' body I couldn't refuse a procedure? If I signed a consent form to allow a procedure to donate one of my kidneys to my brother cannot refuse that procedure after I sign the consent form? I would be bound, and in fact forced to under go the procedure and have my kidney removed?

    so much for brotherly love in your family. I guess you could change your mind and refuse and I guess your brother would be just a touch peeved if you did but you shouldn't have to worry about it for too long.

    Zombrex wrote: »

    So if your child requires one of your organs, say a kidney, you cannot refuse a procedure to take it because your child owns your organs not you?

    You can and I expect from your argument that you would. Most parents would willing give up a kidney and if necessary their lives for their children.
    That you would not says a lot.


  • #1578
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    I'll be off air again. Feel free to waste more of your time though. it looks like you enjoy it


  • #1579
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    I'll be off air again. Feel free to waste more of your time though. it looks like you enjoy it

    Your central very very very very incoherient argument, is that a fetus being inside a woman's womb without her consent is not a violation of the woman's bodily integrity.

    The simple response is that of course it is a violation of bodily integrity, it is a text book example of the violation of bodily integrity (someone else using the internal organs of another person without consent)

    You seem to support that it isnt by saying the uterus gave consent. Which frankly just shows how completely stupid your argument became at the end. What next, your right thumb is going to apply for a driving license :rolleyes: Individual organs do not have agency in any ethical framework I'm aware of, a fact I'm sure you are well aware of. You just got desperate to try and find a way to counter this position.

    But you seem stubbornly unable or unwilling to see that. I would imagine this is actually the first time you have encountered this argument, and frankly didn't expect it and have given it no serious consideration, hence the pages and pages of bizarre and irrelevant questions and posts.

    The general of the principle of bodily integrity is that a person owns their organs and another person cannot use these organs without consent.

    That principle applied to pregnancy is that the fetus requires the permission of the mother to use her womb and without this permission the woman can remove the fetus from the womb.

    When you have an actual response to that, one that doesn't involve granting your individual organs personhood, musings on the purpose of uteruses or the difference between the word "remove" and "replace" (I mean seriously!), get back to me. :rolleyes:


  • #1580
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    The interesting debate zombrex and festus are having is on the Judith Jarvis Thompson ethical argument for abortion (google "A defense for abortion"). It involves a thought experiment where you wake up having been kidnapped and find yourself being used to keep a famous violionist alive by using your blood supply to keep his kidneys functional. The bodily integrity argument is based on this type of analogy.

    There is a reason why the "bodily integrity" argument is not typically used in legal arguments for abortion as it is very weak from an ethical standpoint and unsupportable from a legal standpoint. If you look at the actual legislation for example in the US and in the UK, the legal justification for abortion is based on the fact that the health and right to life of the mother trumps the health and right to life of an embryo or fetus.

    The "defense for abortion" argument based on bodily integrity is a very good one involving rape. In the violionist example you have been kidnapped against your will, in the case of rape the woman is pregnant against her will. In a normal non-rape pregnancy, the ethical questions to consider are different and involve tacit consent and personal responsibility. These are not trivial issues, and have been argued incessantly since Thompson published her paper in 1971. In fact the Thompson paper is one of the most debated in philosophy.

    For the record I am pro-choice but find the Thompson argument a very weak one. The supportable ethical justification for abortion in the case of a pregnancy following consensual sex in my view is when the health (including mental health) or life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is unviable. Health or life at risk is a determination that should be made by a medical professional.


  • #1581
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    There is a reason why the "bodily integrity" argument is not typically used in legal arguments for abortion as it is very weak from an ethical standpoint and unsupportable from a legal standpoint. If you look at the actual legislation for example in the US and in the UK, the legal justification for abortion is based on the fact that the health and right to life of the mother trumps the health and right to life of an embryo or fetus.

    That isn't very accurate. The central argument in Roe vs Wade is that bodily integrity is an issue of privacy, and every US citizen has the right to privacy granted by the US Constitution.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    For the record I am pro-choice but find the Thompson argument a very weak one. The supportable ethical justification for abortion in the case of a pregnancy following consensual sex in my view is when the health (including mental health) or life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is unviable. Health or life at risk is a determination that should be made by a medical professional.

    But to be consistent that should be applied after birth as well (ie if your child needs the use of one of your organs you have to, under force, give it). That is not applied anywhere I'm aware of.

    Which produces a hugely inconsistent notion of parental responsibility. Why does your unborn child have more right to use your organs than your born child?


  • Advertisement
  • #1582
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That isn't very accurate. The central argument in Roe vs Wade is that bodily integrity is an issue of privacy, and every US citizen has the right to privacy granted by the US Constitution.

    But to be consistent that should be applied after birth as well (ie if your child needs the use of one of your organs you have to, under force, give it). That is not applied anywhere I'm aware of.

    Which produces a hugely inconsistent notion of parental responsibility. Why does your unborn child have more right to use your organs than your born child?

    Bodily integrity as you have argued it over the past several pages has little to do with the initial Roe v Wade decision or subsequent US Supreme court decisions. Read correctly, these legal decisions both protect the right of the mother to privacy in choosing an abortion and also protect the right of the state to regulate abortion, depending on the stage of pregnancy. If the court had ruled according to the arguments you are putting forth, no restrictions based on the stage of pregnancy would have been granted to the state. The initial Roe v Wade ruling for example limited the right to privacy on abortion to the first trimester. The clearest example to understand Roe v Wade is with regard to viability, the court's decision was to grant the state the power to regulate and even ban abortion after viability, so long as this was balanced with safeguarding a woman's health and life.

    Roe v Wade and all subsequent decisions are based on balancing the right to privacy regarding abortion with the state's interests in woman's health and the potentiality of life. The right to privacy with regard to abortion, in the US at least, is not an unconditional right.

    Most of the examples you have given earlier and in the example above are not legislated for because the ethical questions raised are too challenging to legislate for and would likely never reach consensus. The Thompson argument falls under this umbrella, an interesting ethical debate but impractical to legislate. There is no state or country that I am aware of where the Thompson argument you are putting forth has been legislated.

    I believe the best data point on the ethical questions regarding abortion is where is public opinion in a country like the US where abortion has been legal for >40 years. The continued trend is greater support for abortion rights as I outlined in my earlier post and reduced support for legal abortion in all or most cases.


  • #1583
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Bodily integrity as you have argued it over the past several pages has little to do with the initial Roe v Wade decision or subsequent US Supreme court decisions.

    I'm not saying the Supreme courts interpretation of bodily integrity is identical to abortion proponents, but your classification of it being "little to do" is inaccurate and misleading.

    The ultimate principle is that the government has no right to regulate the private actions a person undertakes on their own body. The court attempts to balance that with the right of the government protect the life of the unborn fetus once it is viable. But this is just different measures of the same principles
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If the court had ruled according to the arguments you are putting forth, no restrictions based on the stage of pregnancy would have been granted to the state.

    Correct, but then that is not because the court is using a fundamentally different concept of bodily integrity, it is because the court does not see the right to bodily integrity as so protected that it means states cannot regulate abortion when the fetus is viable.

    I think this position is fundamentally contradictory given how we view bodily privacy in all other situations, and may pro-choice supporters feel Roe vs Wade is still extremely biased against women.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The right to privacy with regard to abortion, in the US at least, is not an unconditional right.
    Has anyone argued it is?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Most of the examples you have given earlier and in the example above are not legislated for because the ethical questions raised are too challenging to legislate for and would likely never reach consensus. The Thompson argument falls under this umbrella, an interesting ethical debate but impractical to legislate. There is no state or country that I am aware of where the Thompson argument you are putting forth has been legislated.

    They are easy to legislate for. The problem is that such legislation would probably result in the legal death of viable fetuses. And that makes people emotionally uncomfortable, even if they cannot ethically justify that.

    Every few years governments go nuts, particularly after terrorist attacks, and start dismantling freedom of speech and privacy laws for the same reasons. It is all very well to have a structured consistent ethical system, but once emotion is introduced all bets are off.


  • #1584
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    They are easy to legislate for. The problem is that such legislation would probably result in the legal death of viable fetuses. And that makes people emotionally uncomfortable, even if they cannot ethically justify that.

    The argument against such legislation is an ethical one not an emotional one, which is what makes it so difficult. While much of the opposition to abortion is emotional and not well reasoned, the opposition to the state providing unlimited abortion is very well reasoned. In my view a viable fetus has a right to life that can only be denied in the case of significant threat to the health or life of the mother. If the state cannot protect the life of a viable fetus where there is no threat to the mother's health, then the state may as well abandon legislating on any ethical issue.


  • #1585
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The argument against such legislation is an ethical one not an emotional one, which is what makes it so difficult.

    As I pointed out once the child is born it has less rights to the mother's organs than before it is born. Even if a born child is dying the State will not force a mother (or father) to invalidate bodily privacy in any western country I'm aware of.

    That seems purely an emotional position, not an ethical one. Why would the status of the rights a child has over the mother's body change simply by being born?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    While much of the opposition to abortion is emotional and not well reasoned, the opposition to the state providing unlimited abortion is very well reasoned. In my view a viable fetus has a right to life that can only be denied in the case of significant threat to the health or life of the mother.

    Yes but what that really means is that in your view a viable fetus has the right to use the mother's organs to sustain themselves without her consent unless there is a significant threat to the health or life of the mother.

    On what ethical justification can the foetus over rule the mother with regard to use of the mother's organs? Is it purely a case of well the foetus needs them to live? That the right to life grants the foetus the right to over rule the mother's wishes as to what her organs are used for?

    And do you believe that right should extend after birth?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If the state cannot protect the life of a viable fetus where there is no threat to the mother's health, then the state may as well abandon legislating on any ethical issue.

    You do appreciate though I hope that what that again actually means is the State over ruling a woman with regard to how their organs are used for the protection of another person (in this case the foetus).

    Can you think of any other situation where something similar happens? I can't, and that is the inconsistency with this ethical concept, and why it seems purely an emotional one, not one reasoned from sound ethical principles.

    The ethical principle seems to be you have a right to bodily integrity, you own your own organs, the State cannot force you to do anything to violate your bodily integrity or to give up usage of your organs even for the benefit of another person ... except if you are a pregnant mother.

    I get very concerned when arbitrary "except" clauses pop up in ethical discussions. It is normally the sign than an emotional argument is about to follow


  • #1586
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    As I pointed out once the child is born it has less rights to the mother's organs than before it is born. Even if a born child is dying the State will not force a mother (or father) to invalidate bodily privacy in any western country I'm aware of.

    Yes but what that really means is that in your view a viable fetus has the right to use the mother's organs to sustain themselves without her consent unless there is a significant threat to the health or life of the mother.

    On what ethical justification can the foetus over rule the mother with regard to use of the mother's organs? Can you think of any other situation where something similar happens? I can't, and that is the inconsistency with this ethical concept, and why it seems purely an emotional one, not one reasoned from sound ethical principles.

    The ethical principle seems to be you have a right to bodily integrity, you own your own organs, the State cannot force you to do anything to violate your bodily integrity or to give up usage of your organs even for the benefit of another person ... except if you are a pregnant mother.

    I get very concerned when arbitrary "except" clauses pop up in ethical discussions. It is normally the sign than an emotional argument is about to follow

    I fully understand the Judith Thomson argument so there's no need to repeat it ad nauseum.

    Where I agree with Thomson is in the case of rape, as no implicit consent was given to become pregnant. I also agree that up to viability a woman has the right to choose to continue to carry an embryo or fetus to viability or terminate the pregnancy. However, once viability is reached in my ethical view of the world the rules change.

    There is no safe medical procedure to remove a fetus from the womb at viability, say 22 - 26 weeks. Any procedure at this stage greatly threatens the life of the fetus. This is the point that the bodily integrity argument fails to address, and we see the counter argument that "termination of the pregnancy does not mean termination of the fetus". Unfortunately the reality is termination of the pregnancy at this stage greatly risks the life of the fetus, an ethical argument you just can't sidestep.

    By the way, after birth states typically give all kinds of special status to children, protection from physical or mental abuse, the right to a state education, etc. Granting the right to life to a viable fetus is in my view is in the same category, something a civilized society should do.


  • #1587
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Where I agree with Thomson is in the case of rape, as no implicit consent was given to become pregnant. I also agree that up to viability a woman has the right to choose to continue to carry an embryo or fetus to viability or terminate the pregnancy. However, once viability is reached in my ethical view of the world the rules change.

    I don't care. I'm asking you why that ethical view is inconsistent between a fetus and a born child.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    There is no safe medical procedure to remove a fetus from the womb at viability, say 22 - 26 weeks. Any procedure at this stage greatly threatens the life of the fetus. This is the point that the bodily integrity argument fails to address

    The bodily integrity argument does address it. Your right to bodily integrity over rules another persons right to life if that person is violating your bodily integrity and killing them is the only way to restore your bodily integrity.

    That is a general principle that is applied to everyone. If someone is raping you and the only way to stop them from raping you is to kill them you can kill them. Their right to life is over ruled. If someone is doing surgery on you and the only way to stop them is to killing the, you can kill them. Their right to life is over ruled.

    etc etc etc etc

    The only case that this doesn't apply is in relation to pregnancy. An exception is made in pregnancy. The foetus violates the woman's bodily integrity and the woman has no recourse because the foetus' right to life trumps the woman's right to bodily integrity.

    But only in pregnancy. That happens in no other case, and evaporates after the child is born. Once your child is born his/her right to life no longer trumps the mother's right to bodily integrity.

    Can you explain why that is the case? It seems nothing more than an unethical exception inserted for emotional reasons.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    By the way, after birth states typically give all kinds of special status to children, protection from physical or mental abuse, the right to a state education, etc.

    Do any of these statuses include that they over rule the parent's right to bodily integrity? I am aware of no such cases.


  • #1588
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't care. I'm asking you why that ethical view is inconsistent between a fetus and a born child.

    At this point I have equal zero patience for both extremes of the abortion debate. Fortunately in modern civilized societies people are moving to the center on this and other societal issues, and the noisy right and noisy right, neither of whom are willing to give an inch, will gradually become irrelevant.

    Voluntary pregnancy is a special case ethically, that's why you cannot compare it to silly examples like famous violinists attached to you, people stealing your kidneys, or someone raping you. The human rights demand for termination of a viable fetus on bodily integrity grounds, when the termination threatens the life of the fetus, is simply unethical to the majority of people in modern societies and that majority is growing. Just like the majority is growing of people who support early termination for any reason, and termination at any time to protect the health and life of the mother.

    I suggest you start a thread on the A&A forum and ask how many support termination at any stage of pregnancy based on bodily integrity. I suspect you won't find many supporters over there either, which begs the question why you are banging that particular drum on this forum.


  • #1589
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The ultimate principle is that the government has no right to regulate the private actions a person undertakes on their own body.
    That is not one that is applied in other cases in other areas which do not impinge on the unborn. It is applying an attempt to apply a standard of strict certainty into real-world situations, and hence like most leftish dogmas, fails.


  • #1590
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Voluntary pregnancy is a special case ethically, that's why you cannot compare it to silly examples like famous violinists attached to you, people stealing your kidneys, or someone raping you.
    Why is "voluntary pregnancy" a special case? That sounds like nothing but an emotive argument.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The human rights demand for termination of a viable fetus on bodily integrity grounds, when the termination threatens the life of the fetus, is simply unethical to the majority of people in modern societies and that majority is growing.

    Appeal to authority isn't an ethical argument.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I suggest you start a thread on the A&A forum and ask how many support termination at any stage of pregnancy based on bodily integrity. I suspect you won't find many supporters over there either, which begs the question why you are banging that particular drum on this forum.

    No need to get defensive. You claimed the arguments for abortion were not an emotive exception to the regular notions of bodily integrity. I merely asked you to explain that those ethical arguments are.


  • Advertisement
  • #1591
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Manach wrote: »
    That is not one that is applied in other cases in other areas which do not impinge on the unborn.

    What does the government dictate you cannot or must do to your internal organs?


Advertisement