Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm aware that it's a debate tactic and an underhanded one, but it's effective, as is calling the pro-choice movement a pro-death cult. Both are appeals to emotion.
I would say pro-death cult is an accurate representation. The pro abortion movement advocates, promotes and even celebrates death.
#shoutyourabortion
How is that not pro death? Or do you object to the use of cult?
This debate between Informed Consent, you, and me started with an argument that abortion may be warranted when it is the result of sexual assault but not when it is the result of consensual intercourse. In nearly every post, Informed Consent repeats ad nauseum that it is depraved to end a pregnancy for the sake of convenience because, she argues, the embryo is vulnerable, but I would argue that all fetuses are vulnerable regardless of the circumstances of their conception, so taking that position does mean that the "exception for mother's health" is ethically inconsistent. The debate then moved to an argument based on self-defense, which is nonsensical because the embryo/fetus is guilty of no crime even if the pregnancy resulted from rape.
This debate is not between the three of us. I have not addressed Informed Consents posts nor do I pretend to speak for her. I am addressing your comments.
Quote:
Supporting that argument has forced YOU into an all or nothing position not me. I remain pro-choice.
As shown below, it is you who declare it an "all or nothing" position which is your opinion, nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kj1065
Ethically, it's an all or nothing position.
Obviously there are those who disagree, likely those who know the definition of "ethics".
Quote:
BTW, Cornell's Legal Information Institute might appreciate a proper citation next time you decide to copy and paste.
The quotation marks around the information you are referring is a indication I am quoting from another source. For additional sources you may try googling the word "ethics" to learn it isn't a concrete term as the original quote says, it points more to 'decisions' rather than 'conclusions'. It really isn't that difficult.
BTW, How many topics can you name that doesn't include exceptions?
This debate is not between the three of us. I have not addressed Informed Consents posts nor do I pretend to speak for her. I am addressing your comments. As shown below, it is you who declare it an "all or nothing" position which is your opinion, nothing more. Obviously there are those who disagree, likely those who know the definition of "ethics". The quotation marks around the information you are referring is a indication I am quoting from another source. For additional sources you may try googling the word "ethics" to learn it isn't a concrete term as the original quote says, it points more to 'decisions' rather than 'conclusions'. It really isn't that difficult.
BTW, How many topics can you name that doesn't include exceptions?
Okay, let's start over then. Informed Consent's argument to me, into which you deliberately inserted yourself and now want to claim otherwise, is based on the principle of protecting the vulnerable. She has backed herself into a corner because she makes an exception for a baby conceived from rape. How is a baby conceived via sexual assault any less vulnerable than one conceived via a consensual act of intercourse? There is no difference, yet IC treats them differently. The code of conduct informed by the set of values she claims to use in determining that abortion is not justified when intercourse is consensual is undermined by permitting abortion for a pregnancy that results from rape. That's what I mean when I stated that her argument was all or nothing. And then IC turned to self-defense to justify her inconsistency in an attempt to win the debate. That doesn't work either because the fetus is not the perpetrator in a sexual assault.
Back to the copy and paste portion of your previous post, proper attribution requires more than just quotation marks. Please include sources either through a citation or a link, so readers can find the original material if desired.
It ensures continuation of the mother's DNA, which is the biological purpose of life. I would posit that parasitism, a subset of symbiosis, is interspecific, although as you point out, brood parasitism can involve an individual of the same species.
That being said, I do agree with you that getting too wrapped up in terminology does not necessarily further the discussion in a constructive way. Still, the term parasite used to describe a human fetus makes me flinch, as does the phrase "pro-death cult" coming from the other side of the debate.
Continuation of DNA is not specifically a benefit. That is your opinion just as a being an intraspecific organism surviving by "eating of the host table" is a parasite. That term is often used to describe those who
live off the backs of others. Being interspecific has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kj1065
In any case, brood parasitism is a strategy for getting out of maternal obligation by placing an egg in the nest of another individual, and while it works for birds, it doesn't seem appropriate to apply the term to a human pregnancy or any mammalian pregnancy for that matter. And if it were to take place, the tactical maneuvers required boggle the mind!
Okay, let's start over then. Informed Consent's argument to me, into which you deliberately inserted yourself and now want to claim otherwise, is based on the principle of protecting the vulnerable. She has backed herself into a corner because she makes an exception for a baby conceived from rape. How is a baby conceived via sexual assault any less vulnerable than one conceived via a consensual act of intercourse? There is no difference, yet IC treats them differently. The code of conduct informed by the set of values she claims to use in determining that abortion is not justified when intercourse is consensual is undermined by permitting abortion for a pregnancy that results from rape. That's what I mean when I stated that her argument was all or nothing. And then IC turned to self-defense to justify her inconsistency in an attempt to win the debate. That doesn't work either because the fetus is not the perpetrator in a sexual assault.
You haven't read enough of my posts. I have said multiple times that I object to abortion on the grounds of the Non-Aggression Principle. A pregnancy due to rape is the result of a forced aggressive act in which the woman does not voluntarily participate. A pregnancy due to consensual sex is a known risk that a woman chooses to accept when she voluntarily participates in male/female sex, so there should be no reason to abort any consequent pregnancy unless there are severe fetal anomalies or the mother's physical health is at risk.
Being pro-choice does not mean one is pro-death. I am pro-choice, which means I support any path forward a woman chooses in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, as long as it is lawful. I have had an abortion, which I have detailed in a previous thread. It was lawful at the time, although today it would not be in the state where it was performed. As such, I am very aware of the consequences of that decision. Abortion ends life. I have no argument with that statement.
You haven't read enough of my posts. I have said multiple times that I object to abortion on the grounds of the Non-Aggression Principle. A pregnancy due to rape is the result of a forced aggressive act in which the woman does not voluntarily participate. A pregnancy due to consensual sex is a known risk that a woman chooses to accept when she voluntarily participates in male/female sex, so there should be no reason to abort any consequent pregnancy unless there are severe fetal anomalies or the mother's physical health is at risk.
IC, I have likely read all of your posts on this subject multiple times. I am very aware of your position and the words you use to defend your position. I find them unprincipled and have discussed in detail why I find them so. There's no requirement that we agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
