Should a woman who has repeated abortions have her uterus privileges taken away?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by kazenatsu, Oct 31, 2020.

  1. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Parallels are rarely exact. It's hard to make all principles of one thing match all principals of another. In this last case, we are talking about the consent and implied consent issue. You are now trying to conflate it with other issues. Keep the issues separate. So given that, lets just say, for the sake of argument, that in one unique case, the repair of a broken bone would indeed cause injury to a person other then the one with the broken bone. Would you not agree that the point of their implied consent to the potential of a broken bone by engaging in the activity still did not constitute consent for it to remain broken, even though they might not be allowed to correct the break due to the harm to another?

    Now as to the new principle that you are introducing. I have actually been building up to that, but you are forestalling that in your refusal to show me where I have only a privilege with my own body as opposed to a right. Again, I do not have an automatic right to anything external to my body, and such is not my argument. Once I have your answer to that, then we can move on to the other principal.
     
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113


    So now lets's go back to the fact that ""there is no other human being involved"......which you claim there is:


    YOU,( quoted directly and HONESTLY) :""If you have reckless sex, and then have an abortion, you have committed a wrong against another human being."""






    There is no other human being involved.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given that the criteria of what constitutes a "human being" is one that is contested, and not fully agreed upon, this is currently regulated to opinion. You are welcomed to try to provide actual facts to back it up though.

    That said, the "human being" argument, either is or isn't in reference to the ZEF, is really a red herring. It holds no true bearing on that which provides the right of the woman to an abortion.
     
  4. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The ZEF is human (adjective) , it is not A human (noun) as in a legal person.

    There is no debate, the fetus has no rights like BORN human beings.


    Please point out the rights you think a ZEF has...
     
  5. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The legal definitions of things do not always match the common use definitions, which is why such legal definitions have to be specified within law.

    Furthermore, the rights of a person may be denied by law, as we have seen, and fought against in the past. Thus simply asking for a show of legal rights is irreplaceable to actual rights. As an example, it was claimed that same sexed people had the right to marry each other even though legally they did not have that right.

    Even being a human does not guarantee all rights. There are rights we have as citizens of our countries, that non citizen humans do not have. So, again, the citing of law does nothing for the indication of human being or not.

    All that said, my point is not that a ZEF has right or doesn't have rights. My point is that neither the ZEF's status as a human being (or any other type of being for that matter), nor whatever rights it has or doesn't have, matter in regards to a person's right to have an abortion. Those are red herrings to the issue.
     
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113

    All born persons have a right to bodily autonomy.


    What "rights" do you want a ZEF to have ?
     
  7. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is where you are making a straw man. At no point have I claimed that a ZEF has rights or doesn't have right. Please quote me where I have.

    I have only pointed out that such is a red herring. IF a ZEF had rights, it would be a moot point. Likewise with claiming it doesn't have rights. It's a moot point. You seem to be too caught up in what you think I am saying to actually read what I am saying.
     
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    What "rights" do you want a ZEF to have ?


    Uhh,,, please read what I am saying and not what you think I am saying.

    I CLEARLY asked a QUESTION...I did NOT claim you said anything...
     
  9. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not asking for any rights for ZEF. I won't claim if they do or do not have them nor if they should or should not have them.
     
  10. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still waiting on your answer as to what is a privilege with my own body and not a right.
     
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    18,372
    Likes Received:
    5,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a good point, but you know that pregnancy is a very special unique case.

    There are also past threads about the situation of conjoined twins, which is probably the closest analogy here.

    I've also in the past made threads about cases where individuals are not given rights over their body, like mandatory vaccinations in some states and countries for children, or numerous government laws that seek to control what people can do themselves.
    I believe the analogy is there.

    I can give you the links to more specific threads, if you ask for them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2020
  12. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    She did not violate any Laws. Like Reverend Cain, she is not a criminal.

    But others have a right to view her as a moral equivalent of a murderess.

    For instance if she tries to use SJW shaming language, she should be reminded of her misdeeds.
     
  13. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Legally -- she did not violate any laws. About 80% of Americans support legal abortion.

    Ethically -- those who view abortion as murder are free to view her as such.

    Especially -- if she uses SJW shaming language, it is wise to remind everyone that she does not belong on a moral high horse.
     
  14. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Will of the Majority is the Law:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    18,372
    Likes Received:
    5,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The majority of Americans have no idea what Roe v Wade actually specifically was, other than it has something to do with women being allowed to get abortions.

    Therefore, any poll about that is kind of meaningless, in a way.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2020
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    18,372
    Likes Received:
    5,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The legal argument is a disingenuous one. "It should be legal because it is legal" That's a non-sequitur.

    Then there is the logical appeal to popularity. "This idea is right because the majority of people believe it"
    Combined with an overgeneralization, using the category of "abortion" here as a catch-all.

    Start asking about late-term abortion specifically, or partial birth abortion, and those numbers start drastically changing.
    Ask most Americans if they still support it after the fetus can be seen sucking its thumb in the womb. It won't be as high as 80% then.
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    18,372
    Likes Received:
    5,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That pretty much throws ethical obligation to act out the window.

    And would nullify 90% of the arguments of progressives for more regulations, if we were really going to be consistent here (which I'm sure we are not).

    How about that quote from Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2020
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unique enough that there can be no single analogy that fits it to make a parallel. Thus different principles from different situations would have to be looked at and applied.

    While I will agree that it is the closest analogy, the key difference is that in the case of pregnancy the separation of the two is inevitable, where as with conjoined twins there will be no separation without external intervention. In pregnancy, thee mother and ZEF are two separate bodies and actually share no physical parts. The umbilical cord connects them, but that goes away, one way or the other. That does not happen with conjoined twins.

    For the sake of the argument we need to first established the difference between legal adults and the legal underaged. The later category is one that typically cannot protect itself against the external, and thus the adults do so for them. So an imposition upon a child cannot hold the same legal argument as one against an adult. And I will admit that there are some laws out there that I feel are in as much violation of bodily autonomy as any restriction of abortion would be, so the argument of the existence of these laws is not a valid one in and of itself. The argument is on the principles, which we can then apply to existing laws to see if they follow or violate said principle and whether or not an exception to the rule should be made, thus generating another principle. The problem then arises when we get to the point of conflicting rights and which takes precedence over the other. Typically the best path is looking at whether one right will cause harm if it is given priority over the other. If we give free speech priority over libel/slander (as opposed to negative opinion), another is harmed, whereas when reversed, no harm comes to the speaker for not being allowed to slander/libel. However, we do have cases where there will be harm regardless of which right we give priority to, abortion being one of them. We can parallel that with the use of organ transplants. Does the right of a person to live trump the right of another person to their own body? In the cases where the taking of something from person A, will allow person B to live, without causing death to person A, does person B's right to life give them the right to person A's kidney or bone marrow or blood, even if person A does not wish to give it? To further the parallel, can person A initially give permission to the use of the body part, but then at any time prior to the removal, withdraw the permission and consent, or once consent is given they must continue? Obviously, once the body part is removed from the body, there is no longer an issue of bodily autonomy, thus permission/consent cannot be withdrawn after the fact. If we are to conclude that such permission/consent cannot be withdrawn, how far does that principle go?

    I think quotes from the threads, if needed, would suffice.
     
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually that's circular reasoning. Non-sequitur would be more like "It's legal because the sun shines when it's not raining."

    That argument can as easily be applied to both sides. The evil for the pro-choice side would be the removal of bodily autonomy. Which is why us good men are doing something.
     
  20. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a good argument. If the will of the majority is that blacks should be enslaved again, then should it be law? Or should instead should rule of law protect the rights of all over the will of the majority?
     
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ya, Americans know what RvW was and good Americans still believe in freedom.

    On the other hand NO one knows what TF "uterus privileges"" are ...because THEY don't exist..and any opinion about it is meaningless....LOL..
     
  22. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What makes men "good" if they want to take away women's rights? They aren't....

    BTW, "men" don't have to do anything except mind their own business....and when they find themselves pregnant then they can pass laws against abortion ;) ;)
     
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    49,320
    Likes Received:
    17,532
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Funny how you use the word "logical" in your thread on "uterus privileges" !!!!... which don't exist...how "logical " is that :)??
     
  24. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    8,437
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know about abortion. But I am considering that anyone who has a child out of wedlock should be sterilized, along with the sire if he can be determined. It would go a long way towards limiting the hordes of Fatherless predators preying on society and all the grief they cause. Not to mention absolving ourselves of the absurd burden of feeding, housing and healing the very thing that afflicts us.
     
  25. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why? What difference is that piece of paper going to do? Fathers and mothers are legally responsible for their children regardless of whether or not the piece of paper exists.
     

Share This Page