Only in your opinion....and having no argument is your forte You inability to refute what I post doesn't mean I don't have an argument......that would be you. I see you still need to cherrypick posts to avoid those INCONVENIENT facts...
I don't even know if I'm against dueling or not. I think it's an idiotic way to settle a quarrel. But if you kill somebody in a duel, you'll likely go to prison. I am sure that I'm against abortion. But it's not my choice. It's the choice of the women who carries the embryo. They have to make what will probably be, in most cases, the most difficult decision they will ever make in their life. I can't imagine that it would be anything but heart-wrenching to opt for an abortion. But neither you nor I have a right to decide for them.
There is only one valid reason and that is soley up to the woman's idea of what is valid to her...not YOU..... Abortion isn't "special" but it sure isn't the same as dueling....
This, simply is opinion, on both sides. There is no medical evidence as to when a ZEF becomes a person in and of itself. It could be at the moment of birth, it could at the point the ZEF becomes viable, it might even be at some point after the birth as some faiths and traditions have it. Now keep in mind that such a point is different than when the ZEF/baby (used such to include both pre-and post-birth) receives legal recognition and rights per a given country's laws. I certainly won't argue that as an individual, these rights don't legally manifest until the birth. That is fact. We have proven it multiple times. But that only speaks of current law, not whether or not a given individual is a person or not. As an example, slaves were not considered, legally speaking, persons. They were property per the law. The argument for them to be free was that they were persons in reality, even if not in law. But ultimately, as I have noted multiple times, the person hood of the ZEF is irrelevant because of bodily autonomy. It very much does. Bodily autonomy is not limited to abortion/gestation, and thus the principle must be looked across all its applications, not just one, to show how the principle is justified for the one. However, the application of the right of bodily autonomy does not automatically mean no one else is affected by the decision. Opinion, especially since what would constitute such "chaos" would be subjective. However, it is to note, that if dueling were to be legal, it would not be murder, by legal standards at least. Might still be by religious standards, or even social standards, but not by legal standards. Murder is, by definition, an illegal murder. It is why killing in self defense or in a war, or even really, abortion, is not murder. These killings are not illegal. Given the chaos that surrounds this subject, it arguably can. But again, that is based upon the fact that such chaos is subjective. Once again, good and bad are subjective values. I find this a good analogy, although I do not agree with the OP's views or conclusions. The analogy's illustration can be used both ways.
Yes indeed you did. For it to cause chaos in the future, hence why it should not be legal again, logically it would have had to have caused chaos in the past, thus rendering the need to be made illegal, where once legal. And yes, such chaos would be synonymous with "destabilizing influence".
No, there is NO medical evidence...so that can't be used as determining when a fetus becomes a person. However, law and common sense say at birth. Slaves were BORN people, it was wrong to take away their bodily autonomy and that was rectified. That is in response to my : Support of the right to bodily autonomy( the right to choose either abortion or gestation) does NOT hinge on it's "none of anyone's business". And I was responding to a poster who insisted that is what Pro-Choice bases their argument on...they don't. . Which I have done many times.. How people around the woman who has an abortion feel is totally irrelevant to her freedom to choose, her right to bodily autonomy. Dueling, legally or illegally is chaos... Gee, I missed it since dueling involves two people and abortion involves one. If somehow you find the analogy apt....what does it prove in regards to abortion....??
So show me the post where I said : "" dueling created a destabilizing influence on the fabric of early American society."" Those are another posters words......he claimed I said them...that doesn't mean I said them OK, let's open the floodgates and let people duel to the death... we could have it done in an arena and charge a fee, televise it, let people do it in parks and on the street...guns or rapiers or blow guns with poison darts..... and wave goodbye to civilization!!! Gosh , it sounds just like abortion ….!!!! NOT
Here's some more INCONVENIENT questions to ignore : What is the group called that is against legalizing dueling? What action have they taken to prevent the legalization of dueling? What is the name of the "abortion supporter" that doesn't want to legalize dueling? What is the name of the group that wants to legalize dueling??? BTW, the term "abortion supporter" is simply emotional flamebait…. ..the true term for those who believe women have the same rights as everyone else is "Pro-Choice".
What have you proved? 1st you need to prove pro choice supporters are against legal duels. You have not even attempted to make a case.
You are correct here...because even if the ZEF is considered a person that can't take away the woman's rights....she can claim self defense and have it killed... So people can argue and argue about the fetuses "rights" but it can't destroy someone else's rights....so there doesn't seem to be much of an argument for declaring a ZEF a person.... a real waste of time..
If there is a definition of person, which I believe there is, then there is medical evidence of when that definition is reached.
But now we are back to a different more fundamental argument, so that is sort of irrelevant to this argument (or at least to this discussion in particular). I mean, for every single Abortion debate thread, if pro-choicers tried to constantly shift the argument to one being about personhood, that would sort of be a disingenuous debate tactic. Yes, if you are right, you are right, but that is a separate abortion argument, certainly not related to this one in any particular way. Besides, I suspect many pro-choicers (if we are being entirely honest here) view the fetus as "sort of" a person, but still believe in abortion for other reasons. So the dueling analogy may still be at least somewhat or partially applicable.
I think it's a safe bet to assume they are. Dueling being illegal and abortion being legal in society, and (I think none of us will disagree) the Right being more receptive to the idea of duels than the Left, combined with the Left being more pro-Abortion in general. Even in the hypothetical case that less than half of pro-choicers would be against duels (which is unlikely), this argument would still be valid to that segment of pro-choicers. I think it is very fair to assume that is at least half of them.
This dueling thing so far is utter BS. You still haven't shown pro choice people are against legal duels. Until that happens, it's speculation. And still isn't a useful analogy. What the heck is 'sort of a person'?
If you want to turn this into an argument about the death penalty, I think that seems to be a fair counter to the dueling comparison, at least superficially on the surface. However, we have already had threads about the death penalty and abortion, and I think some excellent reasons were given, why being pro death penalty and anti-abortion can still be a consistent position.
I don't really have to, for this analogy to be valid. Unless it was reasonable to assume that very few pro-choicers would be against legalization of dueling. Which I don't think it is. So yes, I will concede that this argument in this thread does not apply to pro-choicers who are not (and would not be) against legalization of dueling. Are you trying to write-off this analogy as irreverent because you don't think pro-choicers would be against dueling?
That might be hard to understand for hardline pro-choice abortion advocates who insist the fetus is tantamount to a clump of cells and nothing more.
I don't hang out in abortion threads too often. I think any position one has is reasonable to them. Otherwise they'd not have that position. Pro choice is not pro abortion. It's also not anti abortion. It's a choice that is between the pregnant women and her health and healthcare professionals. Maybe even a psychologist gets involved. As that is not an easy decision in most cases.
Well, I already stated we have a definition of person. And with that definition, we have medical evidence of when a lump of cells becomes that medically evidenced person. We also have a definition for end of life. The same definition could be used to determine beginning of life.
And I already stated that you are going back to a different much more fundamental argument about abortion. (It is the entire abortion issue that hinges on personhood, not this specific analogy being discussed here) As such, I will consider any discussion about that an attempt to derail the subject of this thread. (If you want to, you could just provide a link to another thread specifically debating personhood)
I think that is a burden of proof fallacy. Why would you think my argument could be so easily dismissed just because I do not show specific proof of that one element? I mean, do you have any reason to doubt that the majority of pro-choicers in general are against duels? Are you contending that is not the case? If you don't believe me, why don't you conduct an informal little survey from your friends, neighbors, acquaintances. Just ten people. I think that will prove my point.
Is my supporting abortion the same as when I get accused for supporting the KKK, because I defend their rights to speak their minds?
Supporting someone's right to support an issue is not the same type of thing as supporting an issue. If you wanted to draw a fair analogy, you would have to say that you support the right of pro-choicers to advocate for their beliefs, but that you do not necessarily support abortion yourself.
