EPTRape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
On June 17 2013 17:38 zebaty wrote: Why is it not ok to refuse paying taxes and getting services from goverment (aka free what i want to do with my body/my work/my money from govts will)? And please don`t tell me I was born on their soil , it`ll make me laugh... Well actually it is ok. Remove your clothes, abandon your belongings and jump in the woods. Restart your life from there, nobody has been sued for that until now (that I know). In current society you only have property in that Government has enough strength to enforce it. Remove government, and somebody would kill you and take your things! | ||
|
Stol
Sweden185 Posts
On June 17 2013 17:38 zebaty wrote: I`m not going to argue about the whole thing , just want to understand one argument that I never really understood. People say that woman has to have a choice "what to do with her body" but there is a whole set of circumstances that dont involve harming anyone but willing subject and they are still banned everywhere and I see almost no one talking "it`s slavery" or "it isn`t dark ages anymore , how could you think that?". Main are (but definitely not limited to,would just like to focus on this) : hardcore drug/alcohol (ab)use ( I don`t know about you but here where I live , and am sure it`s true for most countries too, they can just send you to rehab forcibly [govt has 100 % decisizon,not family /whoever else to be clear]. They can ban me from smoking a cigarette out in the street (say no on is around in 100 m radius, for the sake of discussion) but it`s not ok for them to tell the mother she can`t abort ? Why is it not ok to refuse paying taxes and getting services from goverment (aka free what i want to do with my body/my work/my money from govts will)? And please don`t tell me I was born on their soil , it`ll make me laugh... Also, how is something like provisional detention ok when restricting ability to abort is so immoral ? I mean those people aren`t even trialed and still their ability to do what they like with they body (and their life) is heavily restricted? and they are grown idividuals , which seems to give them more rights in your eyes ( definitely not mine...) Just to be clear - we are talking about people who are smoking/drinking/drugging themselves with 100 % their money, at home and not harassing anyone As far as I'm aware of (I dont know about you but here where I live, and I'm sure its true for most countries too), you are only forcibly sent to rehab after your substance abuse has been found to be a part of, or the only reason for why you are committing crimes, such as theft and beating people up. In some rare cases you are also forcedly sent to rehab when its been decided that your substance dependency is so severe that it inhibits you from making independent choices for yourself while continuously harming yourself. However, what I described first usually occurs before that. You are not allowed to smoke out in the street because of second hand smoking(if that's actually the case, never really heard of that kind of rule before, only in cafés and such). In the end you are just not only harming yourself. Neither of these kind of laws has much to do with morals and ethics. I believe someone has already answered your other argument, I have also not heard of anyone being charged for just going out in the woods one day and not come back. As long as you take your car to work and earn money, you are however protected by laws and will receive help if an accident happens. That takes money and it is also a generally agreed upon idea that even those who cant afford a personal bodyguard should perhaps be protected by the same laws as the rich and powerful. This is perhaps ethics and morals but if you want to argue against that, well its a hard argument to make. Detaining someone for a limited amount of time with little indication regarding guilt is immoral, that's why the time is in fact so limited. Detaining someone for an extended amount of time before trial even with many indications of guilt is also immoral, it is however a necessary sacrifice one has to make unless we want to give everyone who has actually committed the crimes a very good change at evading the law. Neither of these two are generally taken lightly so I'm a bit perplexed when you claim that people just think these things are "ok"". Abortion does on the other hand have little to do with ethics and morals. Not killing another human being is a very fundamental claim. The question simply comes down to when you believe a human being is formed. Upon conception is in a sense a very logical view to have. Science does however claim that it is our brain that makes us human and that there's little difference between an early human foetus and say, the early foetus of a pig. Abortion has also generally been shown to be beneficial to society while you just believe its wrong. | ||
|
zebaty
19 Posts
 My skills aren`t getting any less useful if I don`t pay taxes...Also, I strongly belive I have way more right to house that i have build with my own resources than state woods ? Why do you want me to live not in my property and you send me to govts woods instead? Or should I go to some private woods and take their property ? What if I had the biggest ,completely self-sufficient castle mankind has ever seen ? Would i still be able to live there in it in your eyes or maybe social justice would force me to share ( as i have the ability to pay and fuck my property rights)? Also , suing / punishing for just willing for either individual or state secession is going on all the time , where are you living :o In last 100 years probably more than 100 examples. I mean, catalonya was threatened with military intervention last year... Every year we have thousands of cases of people getting convicted for as much as being late 1 day with income tax or making a mistake worth 2 eur, it`s not a joke. But you thinking that they can`t do that and are able to completely remove themselves from govts control is a joke for sure ... Trust me , IF it was ok , I`d have done it years ago . Where I live it is definitely not ok And most importantly : Why doesn`t a woman need to abandon all their things if she want to abort ? how is this even relevant ?:o | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. if you're actually a conservative christian, you'd be pro abortion and pro infanticide even. That's what your god is, after all... Just read the bible. Really, there's no reason to bring religion into this as part of an overall political ideology. What you do and think in your own family and life is one thing, but to dictate what other people are allowed to do based on your particular fantasy of choice is another thing entirely | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 17 2013 06:36 TheSwamp wrote: Why does a woman need to justify anything she does with her body? If men carried babies, there would be no justification needed, and frat boys would brag about how many abortions they have had. Emphasis mine. You have absolutely no basis for the bolded claim. On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: And if I am of the opinion that my religious beliefs being enshrined into law will result in a positive impact on society? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. | ||
|
Stol
Sweden185 Posts
On June 17 2013 18:53 zebaty wrote: why would i abandon my clothes and belongings? so that they can take them and then leave me alone? those are my things , shouldn`t they go where they go ? Maybe you would also prohibit me from using/obtaining cash or maybe , altogether, trading with anyone ? My skills aren`t getting any less useful if I don`t pay taxes...Also, I strongly belive I have way more right to house that i have build with my own resources than state woods ? Why do you want me to live not in my property and you send me to govts woods instead? Or should I go to some private woods and take their property ? What if I had the biggest ,completely self-sufficient castle mankind has ever seen ? Would i still be able to live there in it in your eyes or maybe social justice would force me to share ( as i have the ability to pay and fuck my property rights)? Also , suing / punishing for just willing for either individual or state secession is going on all the time , where are you living :o In last 100 years probably more than 100 examples. I mean, catalonya was threatened with military intervention last year... Every year we have thousands of cases of people getting convicted for as much as being late 1 day with income tax or making a mistake worth 2 eur, it`s not a joke. But you thinking that they can`t do that and are able to completely remove themselves from govts control is a joke for sure ... Trust me , IF it was ok , I`d have done it years ago . Where I live it is definitely not ok And most importantly : Why doesn`t a woman need to abandon all their things if she want to abort ? how is this even relevant ?:o You are totally missing the point that was made. As long as you are a part of society you have to follow the rules set by said society. If you want to keep your house and go to work you're still a part of society. The "go out in the woods" part was aimed at the very thing you have to do to not be a part of society. You may not agree with paying taxes, but as long as you keep living within society you're silently consenting to the rules. You are allowed to vote for a change, but democracy as a concept is also upheld by the society you live in. If you dont want to fund the society you live in you also have to give up all benefits of society, not just the convenient ones. Edit: The point was also that its not relevant at all, but you were the one starting the discussion about taxes. | ||
|
zebaty
19 Posts
What does it matter what occurs first USUALLY ? You admitted yourself that they can forcibly rehab me if I only am harming myself, what`s more to add ? Also, even if i`m not harmng anybody at all , I can still go to prison for merely possession. Which is worse? You are not allowed to smoke out in the street because of second hand smoking(if that's actually the case, never really heard of that kind of rule before, only in cafés and such). In the end you are just not only harming yourself. Neither of these kind of laws has much to do with morals and ethics. I explictly said you need to assume no one is in 100 m radius so that this idiotic argument isn`t here. Btw , when aborting you also aren`t only harming yourself. Ask anyone sane , they probably would rather inhale cigs 24/7 for their lifetime than not live at all ;o I believe someone has already answered your other argument, I have also not heard of anyone being charged for just going out in the woods one day and not come back. As long as you take your car to work and earn money, you are however protected by laws and will receive help if an accident happens. That takes money and it is also a generally agreed upon idea that even those who cant afford a personal bodyguard should perhaps be protected by the same laws as the rich and powerful. This is perhaps ethics and morals but if you want to argue against that, well its a hard argument to make. Say I don`t take my car but I take all my non govt issued resources ? is it ok? And it`s probably your ethics that mass murderers can`t be killed off for greater good " for humanitarian reasons" but it`s ok to abort on mass scale for convinience. It is not mine , and it wouldn`t be for anyone who thinks morality comes from within like i do. Detaining someone for a limited amount of time with little indication regarding guilt is immoral, that's why the time is in fact so limited. Detaining someone for an extended amount of time before trial even with many indications of guilt is also immoral, it is however a necessary sacrifice one has to make unless we want to give everyone who has actually committed the crimes a very good change at evading the law. Neither of these two are generally taken lightly so I'm a bit perplexed when you claim that people just think these things are "ok"". There are limits ( of probably 3 months ,right ) that can be extended for life . My mother was detained for 11 months with no trial to this day and there are people there sitting for 10 + years ( confirmed). You may be right in theory but let`s face it : every singly law is only good on day one , then it is abused :o Maybe you should really visit your detention center or how you call it in sweden and hear stories of people there . I`m sure it`s not so great as you think - no only ciriminals are convicted/trialed/held - trust me .Abortion does on the other hand have little to do with ethics and morals. Not killing another human being is a very fundamental claim. The question simply comes down to when you believe a human being is formed. Upon conception is in a sense a very logical view to have. Science does however claim that it is our brain that makes us human and that there's little difference between an early human foetus and say, the early foetus of a pig. Abortion has also generally been shown to be beneficial to society while you just believe its wrong. How is this relevant ? My only question is why in many circumstances "holy right to do what I want with my body" doesn`t apply? Why can`t i buy myself 10 kgs of heroin and fuck myself up in my garden daily without harming anyone? And don`t tell me I can , they`ll lock me up before 2nd shot probably :o OH , so now it`s the laws of society? And I can`t do what i want with my body because... you collectively said so. And she can abort because you decided she has a right to her body? Legit morality here :o | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
| ||
|
zebaty
19 Posts
| ||
|
Voyage
Germany71 Posts
On June 16 2013 01:56 Christ the Redeemer wrote: First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed. So if life is the distinct value to determine the right / wrong of abortion, why should we be allowed to kill animals. The sensory / mental development of some mammals and the mammal human in utero is not THAT different (there are differences non the less), so this whole scala naturae higher lifeform talk is just arbitrary. On June 16 2013 01:57 cloneThorN wrote: It's much more than that... A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%.[100] Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Inbreeding If disabilities or risk of death is your concern, why not euthanize children with Down-Syndrome, or other hereditary diseases, think of sickle-cell-anaemia. I guess congress thought about the situation of incest being unnatural, for religious or "naturalistic reasons" (muh genetic diversity). Personally I think late-term abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, I mean after 4 months you can expect the average american women to notice a pregnancy. But by forcing them to take the responsibility for a child they (apparently) do not want to raise, has bad implications for the situation the child is going to grow up in. For abortions in the first 3 months (first trimester in general) I support limitless legalisation, depending on each particular case the woman would have to face social repercussions (in America at least), so it is not an easy decision. You can outlaw abortion, but every women who really does not want her child can do a google search supplying sufficient information on rather safe DIY options. | ||
|
Stol
Sweden185 Posts
The way you answered made quoting your post quite hard, so I'll just answer it in one go. First of all you weren't reading everything I said, you are sent to rehab because your substance abuse is making you continuously harm yourself. If substance dependency wasnt a known fact about how the body functions, I wouldnt mind if people willingly injected themselves and drank themselves to death. Once again I have also not heard of a law where its forbidden to have a smoke outside on the streets, especially if there's nobody around? I fully agree that such a law is a massive intrusion in peoples lives. All your resources are also, in one way or the other, issued by the government. The clothes you wear are most likely imported, something made possible from trade agreements made by your government. The food you eat is most likely subsidized by your government, or the government of the country from where it came. Your government is probably the reason why you're able to be online at this moment, arguing against governments. Very few people like having a government deciding things for them personally, but it is impossible to deny the benefits on a larger scale. Of course laws are abused and innocent people suffer. This is however not something people think is ok, it is a weakness within the system which is impossible to avoid and as far as I'm aware most governments at least try to in some way make amends when its discovered. All that being said, you are in almost all these cases confusing imprisonment or even paying taxes with something done to your body. Being held captive at a certain place does, in itself, no bodily harm to you. All kinds of physical punishment is generally frowned upon in most democratic societies. To answer your drug abuse question once again, since you asked it twice, drugs are a complicated matter. The fact that people develop a dependency along with the fact that drugs change the way you would normally handle situations makes it so that one can argue that you're not willingly and fully intentionally doing these things to yourself. Protecting people from harming themselves when its also not entirely certain from where their desire to do so comes from is also one of the very few exceptions where something is actually done to your body. And once again its not something taken lightly. Other than that, you can more or less do whatever you want to your own body in all aspects of life. | ||
|
MarklarMarklarr
Fiji226 Posts
| ||
|
zebaty
19 Posts
I`d argue killing one`s offspring brings irrepairable damage but it`s just my opinion. Why is my decision to harm myself unacceptable? Why can`t I be willingly depentadant on a substance (provided I can do what i like with my body)? It really seems the only reason is you think it`s not right, come on... Smoking on the street (aka all public places) is banned in not one place - go to google.com, and don`t worry - it will come to you. But you don`t smoke so you don`t care , I belive All my resources are issued by government? All governments basically are always spending more than they make ( if they make anything , most of them don`t have any income except for taxes...) and never produce anything of actual value. WTF are you talking about? Do you really think we havent traded before there was established governments ? wow :o I strongly belive you are idealising governments, can`t imagine that world would work without them in current state and it`s obvious why - people have a tendency to think that whatever is happening in front of their eyes ( aka current state of affairs) is the only way to go. Again and again this proves not right but guess what? no one cares. Also, you don`t anwser any of my points directly and instead just write what you heard somewhere and it fits your view so I`m out of here :o | ||
|
iLikeRain
Denmark504 Posts
When that's said and done I really believe in free abortion when done early enough. Though I guess I could see why some would have objections. | ||
|
mijagi182
Poland797 Posts
On June 17 2013 18:58 Quotidian wrote: if you're actually a conservative christian, you'd be pro abortion and pro infanticide even. That's what your god is, after all... Just read the bible. Really, there's no reason to bring religion into this as part of an overall political ideology. What you do and think in your own family and life is one thing, but to dictate what other people are allowed to do based on your particular fantasy of choice is another thing entirely WAY too much weed bro! | ||
|
Stol
Sweden185 Posts
On June 17 2013 20:27 zebaty wrote: Stol - and who in the world are you to decide if i`m harming myself or not ? And even If we can objectively say I do harm myself - does it mean I can do with my body what I like as long as I don`t hurt myself? what bullshit is this?;o I`d argue killing one`s offspring brings irrepairable damage but it`s just my opinion. Why is my decision to harm myself unacceptable? Why can`t I be willingly depentadant on a substance (provided I can do what i like with my body)? It really seems the only reason is you think it`s not right, come on... Smoking on the street (aka all public places) is banned in not one place - go to google.com, and don`t worry - it will come to you. But you don`t smoke so you don`t care , I belive All my resources are issued by government? All governments basically are always spending more than they make ( if they make anything , most of them don`t have any income except for taxes...) and never produce anything of actual value. WTF are you talking about? Do you really think we havent traded before there was established governments ? wow :o I strongly belive you are idealising governments, can`t imagine that world would work without them in current state and it`s obvious why - people have a tendency to think that whatever is happening in front of their eyes ( aka current state of affairs) is the only way to go. Again and again this proves not right but guess what? no one cares. Also, you don`t anwser any of my points directly and instead just write what you heard somewhere and it fits your view so I`m out of here :o Ok, so I went here and to my surprise there was actually one law, worldwide, that entirely prohibits smoking on the streets. It did however only account for small parts of Tokyo, Japan. Other than that you're mixing up the words, the anti smoking laws regarding smoking in public areas are almost always aimed at enclosed public areas. I am also not the one deciding if you're harming yourself. Its done by trained professionals, furthermore that wasnt what I said, I was commenting on the change in personality caused by drugs that can make you harm yourself. You can be willingly dependant on a substance but once again, considering the known scientific facts regarding how substance dependency actually work, especially with drugs that alter your personality, its quite hard to make a solid argument for it. I never said anything about how, or even if, trade was carried out before there were governments. I only said that much of how the world looks today is because of governments. Our history seems quite lost on you however, so lets make things a bit more clear. As soon as people started trading with each-other they realised the need for guidelines and rules on how trade was to be made. Without someone or something dictating the rules for trade people would just take whatever they wanted. Governments are in effect an extension of a citizens power. Early on we had smaller societies with families and friends and they protected each-other and made laws to provide easier interactions amongst themselves. As societies grew, governing institutions arise to protect the increasing population. A currency was formed so that instead of trading item for item or services you would pay someone a piece of coin, its worth upheld by the government. Money as we know it today only has any kind of worth because we trust an institution to account for it. So no, I'm not idealising governments, I never said the world couldn't work without them in their current state, but it is incredibly naive to believe governments in themselves have no value. Lastly I did in fact answer your question directly, I gave examples of how in our society our own bodies are actually in almost all cases our own to do with as we like. I also explained why in some cases, when there is strong reason to believe the person aren't fully aware of what they're doing, you can after professional evaluation decide to protect someone from themselves until they are once again functioning at their full capacity. It is a shame that you've now decided to leave this thread as instead of just assuming you're right and knows what's best, you might actually learn something about how a society works and more importantly, the value of deductive reasoning. | ||
|
cassydd
Australia4 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On June 17 2013 21:53 cassydd wrote: There isn't really much point to nitpicking on a couple of exceptions that the conservatives in the US are throwing in to try to make the whole crap sandwich slightly more palatable in the name of "compromise". If you're pro-choice the entire thing is a farce and if you're anti-choice you likely think you're already giving up too much. Opinions on the larger issue of abortion are all that is really important and remain completely unchanged. He hath spoken. Not sure I agree with any of what you said but then again giving no reasons whatsoever makes it kind of difficult to evaluate your line of thinking. This OP asks a bit of a weird question and had not been constructed well so it's no surprise the real topic of this thread isn't clear. On June 16 2013 01:46 Man with a Plan wrote: What do you think TL? Are any of the two cases, namely rape and incest, justification for abortion (whether pre-20th week or after)? Well if it's pre-20th week ANYTHING at the moment is legally justification for abortion, so really it's only worth asking about post 20 weeks. If that's the case then the thread is exactly about that and not about the larger issue of abortion which everyone seems to be arguing about for some reason. Unfortunately the question was written really badly and what could have been an interesting discussion is now just another abortion debate  On June 17 2013 09:37 ninini wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 16 2013 03:03 Stol wrote: It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism. The moment the sperm and egg fuse together, a full set of human DNA have been created, and the construction of these blueprints (DNA) have started, which is a ongoing process of 20 years or so. If it's not considered a life, 1 week after conception, then it's not considered a life 20 weeks after, or 20 years after. There's no difference. They are the same organism, just at different stages of development. Take identical twins as an example. Identical twins share the same DNA which means they were both formed by the same sperm and egg cells. Identical twins are split in a matter of days after conception, and at that time they are exact duplicates, clones or what have you, and afterwards they carry on growing independently of eachother. The end result is still identical, except for minor differences as a result of mutations, ie things that went wrong. What this tells us is that who we are is already defined, earlier than a few days after conception. In fact, science have shown that this happens immediately after conception. With future technology we could immediately after conception, predict its looks and possibly personality as an adult. It's just a matter of figuring out the coding of human DNA, and finding a way to extract the DNA. The reason why ppl have set a border at 20 weeks or whatever (it varies depending on what country) is because that's when abortion starts getting graphic for them. If you terminate a bunch of cells, you can tell yourself that you're not terminating a human life, and it's not hard to believe it. But if it looks like a tiny baby, it's very hard to convince yourself that it isn't a baby. The only way you could arrive at 20 weeks is by using pseudoscience, by looking at images, or by arbitrarily drawing a line between functions that are/arn't allowed to be developed. It's foolish to assume that a bunch of scientists magically arrived at 20 weeks. The question of whether abortion should be allowed or not depends on two things, convenience and whether you believe in the sanctiety of human life. People who don't believe that all human life is sacred have a very good reason to be pro-choice, because to them, noone have what you would call a "right to live", so to them it's not up to the government to decide. People who do believe in the sanctiety of human life, but who believe that immorality needs to be allowed sometimes out of convenience can also be pro-choice. You could say that these ppl views certain ppl's lives as less than others. People who do believe in the sanctiety of human life, with no exceptions, are pro-life, because they believe that we, ie the government needs to protect the life of all human organisms, no matter what stage they are at. What's worse? Forcing a woman to carry a unwanted baby for 9 months or Taking a young life As for the main question, I don't see a valid reason why the manner of the conception would matter, since this is a question about the sanctiety of life, contra the convenience of the mother, and I don't think anyone would value a rape child as any less than a wanted child. This is by far the worst post I've read on the subject in a long time. "It's foolish to assume that a bunch of scientists magically arrived at 20 weeks." At least we agree on something. Wow that was a painful read. | ||
| ||
