Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2016, 10:39 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 10:43 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

Let me explain.

The leading cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancy. I know, right? So if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, you don't attack access to abortion facilities, you attack unwanted pregnancies. How do you do this? Comprehensive sex education. People need to be taught how their bodies work, and how to protect themselves, long before any of us would probably be comfortable with the idea of our children actually making use of that knowledge. There's no time to be a prude, there is no place for shaming of sexuality. Kids are curious, kids are going to experiment; and I'd rather they didn't wreck their futures out of easily remedied ignorance.

Next up, we need reliable and easy access to contraception and abortion services. In order to avoid potential pregnancies, women need to be able to easily control whether or not they get pregnant, and to quickly and easily terminate one if accidents happen. Pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment for people enjoying sex. You need to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies, and get an abortion quickly and easily so as to avoid those morally questionable late term abortions that the not-religious-zealots Pro-Life people don't like. Women need to be allowed to make that choice, and to have the resources to act on that choice. The right to an abortion is meaningless if abortions are made so hard to get as to be neigh unobtainable; which is the current tactic of the far-right to side step the Supreme Court.

Finally, we need a comprehensive social safety net. If a woman gets pregnant, and you don't want her to get an abortion, then you need to make having a child something that will no longer cripple her financially and destroy her prospects at an education or a future. So this would mean greater subsidies and support for pregnant women and mothers, including things like universal healthcare and affordable daycare. It's not enough to just want women to have babies, you need to put your money where your mouth is and be willing to support the women who do choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term instead of aborting it. I support a woman's right to chose, and I support their choice no mater what it is. If they chose to not have children, I support their access to contraception and abortion. If they chose to have a child, I support their access to healthcare and maternity benefits.

Pro-choice isn't just pro-abortion. To be pro-choice is to support the woman's right to make that choice themselves, and support the decision that they make; whatever it may be.

The religious-right want to outlaw abortion, make people ashamed of their sexuality, use pregnancy as a form of punishment, and subjugate the decisions of women to men and their Bibles. Of course, in all of the areas where such policies are in place, teen pregnancies and botched self-abortions are at their highest. Their policies are having the exact opposite effect. If you want less abortions, the path to that outcome is through greater education and support; not subjugation and shame.


I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-04-2016, 11:20 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(03-04-2016 10:39 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...
I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

I want there to be less abortions and that's why I'm pro-life.



... more food for the exponentially increasing number of atheists.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
03-04-2016, 11:21 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(03-04-2016 10:04 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Additionally I think I will try to get to the root of what I believe you're trying to get at as I'm sure you'll be disappointed in my answers above.
What I am trying to get at is to discover how her business becomes your business.
By this I mean "At what point are you wanting to intervene in this woman's affairs?"

I read a pretty interesting article a while back. It was about the concept of "Natural Law". Note: this is NOT the catholic take on "Natural law".

But the concept comes about because even in a society where the government gets to make up the rules, there are a few rules that the government cannot dictate but instead they are forced to do.
They must do this otherwise the people will rebel or perhaps they can get away with some laws but in order to do so they must exert a great deal of continued force and terror on the people to conform.

It is about the nature of creatures. For example humans are different from cats. You can take a cat's favourite toy away and the cat will not get upset at you, the cat will not get vindictive and it will not seek revenge. Other cats will not come to the aid of this victim cat, they will not help it to get its toy back from you.
Cats have no idea of property. They do not own things, they do not have the concept of theft.
Humans do. We understand the value of property. We claim things as ours and we will put ourselves into confrontation in order to keep our stuff. We may even, as a third party observer, put ourselves into confrontation to help a stranger keep their stuff when an attacker tries to take that stuff.
We understand the value of property and we understand the value of helping each other out in order to have some security about keeping our property within a society. We understand how important this is. We help others out because we ourselves see the danger of existing within a society where others can pinch our stuff. So we actively participate to create a society in which property is valued and protected, even if it means putting ourselves in harms way.
We use a government, laws and police to support this idea. Instead of us putting ourselves in harms way, we use our trained and paid police force to do that for us. So that we can keep our stuff, so that we can be safe from murder, from assault etc.
It's not based on idealism, although some people consider that law should be.
Those idealists will use law to preserve the sanctity of things such as marriage, or sex. Thy outlaw gay marriage, gay relationships, they outlaw contraceptives, they outlaw IVF if they could. For them sex is purely between a man and a woman inside a marriage for the procreation of life. It is sacred and highly valued. For them, if other people desacrate that sacred act they are devaluing it for everyone. Which is a crime against all humanity. They are idealists and are fighting for an ideal even though their unmarried gay neighbors having sex in the privacy of their own house has NO impact on themselves.
I liken your explaination somewhat similar (based on the way you have explained it). You value life, the sanctity of life. You consider that this life ought to be protected (beyond a certain developmental point). You don't think that you need to be directly impacted in order for you to justify forcing your will onto others. You have the opinion that the sanctity of life ought to be protected and you will cast your vote that way and support government and police to enforce this on others.

My question for you (Oh, no, yet another set of questions!).
1. If you knew that a pregnant woman in her second trimester was going for an abortion, would you feel compelled to forcibly stop her?
2. If you knew that a pregnant woman in her third trimester was going for an abortion, would you feel compelled to forcibly stop her?
3. What if she was just one day into her third trimester?

Why would you consider use of force against this woman? Is it just to support your own ideals or do you think her actions will make society unsafe for yourself and your own loved ones?

If a bystander saw you attack this woman in an attempt to save her unborn, would this bystander join you in attacking her, or would they likely try and save her from you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
04-04-2016, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2016 06:38 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
Stevil,

1. If one civilization is performing genocide against another civilization on the other side of the globe from you, do you give zero shits, or do you feel compelled to do something to stop it? What I'm getting at, is would you intervene even if it had no affect on you? If you wouldn't intervene yourself, would you look negatively at a 3rd civilization who did intervene to stop the genocide?

2. Is it your preference that infanticide be legal?

3. What if the infant is only one day into infancy?

4. Would you feel compelled to stop infanticide?

5. If not, at what point do you feel compelled to stop the killing of a developing human? Is it when it exits the womb, when it's 6 months old, 6 years old?

Oh yeah, regarding that whole cat thing. Go find a lion and try taking away it's fresh kill, or one of it's cubs, then report back on how that goes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matt Finney's post
04-04-2016, 10:20 AM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(03-04-2016 10:39 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

Let me explain.

The leading cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancy. I know, right? So if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, you don't attack access to abortion facilities, you attack unwanted pregnancies. How do you do this? Comprehensive sex education. People need to be taught how their bodies work, and how to protect themselves, long before any of us would probably be comfortable with the idea of our children actually making use of that knowledge. There's no time to be a prude, there is no place for shaming of sexuality. Kids are curious, kids are going to experiment; and I'd rather they didn't wreck their futures out of easily remedied ignorance.

Next up, we need reliable and easy access to contraception and abortion services. In order to avoid potential pregnancies, women need to be able to easily control whether or not they get pregnant, and to quickly and easily terminate one if accidents happen. Pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment for people enjoying sex. You need to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies, and get an abortion quickly and easily so as to avoid those morally questionable late term abortions that the not-religious-zealots Pro-Life people don't like. Women need to be allowed to make that choice, and to have the resources to act on that choice. The right to an abortion is meaningless if abortions are made so hard to get as to be neigh unobtainable; which is the current tactic of the far-right to side step the Supreme Court.

Finally, we need a comprehensive social safety net. If a woman gets pregnant, and you don't want her to get an abortion, then you need to make having a child something that will no longer cripple her financially and destroy her prospects at an education or a future. So this would mean greater subsidies and support for pregnant women and mothers, including things like universal healthcare and affordable daycare. It's not enough to just want women to have babies, you need to put your money where your mouth is and be willing to support the women who do choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term instead of aborting it. I support a woman's right to chose, and I support their choice no mater what it is. If they chose to not have children, I support their access to contraception and abortion. If they chose to have a child, I support their access to healthcare and maternity benefits.

Pro-choice isn't just pro-abortion. To be pro-choice is to support the woman's right to make that choice themselves, and support the decision that they make; whatever it may be.

The religious-right want to outlaw abortion, make people ashamed of their sexuality, use pregnancy as a form of punishment, and subjugate the decisions of women to men and their Bibles. Of course, in all of the areas where such policies are in place, teen pregnancies and botched self-abortions are at their highest. Their policies are having the exact opposite effect. If you want less abortions, the path to that outcome is through greater education and support; not subjugation and shame.


I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.


(03-04-2016 10:39 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, you don't attack access to abortion facilities, you attack unwanted pregnancies.

Sorry if this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction.

I had my abortion when my birth control pills failed. I was on medication for a fungal infection using an antibiotic which interfered with the pill. This interaction was unknown to me at the time and I don't even think the doctor knew it would pose a problem. Well, it sure did.

I was about three weeks into the pregnancy when I went in for the abortion so it was very early and I've never had the slightest regret or guilt over it.

And the guilt factor is something the religious right has tried to hang on women for years saying it was life altering because of the horrible emotional guilt they suffered afterwards. This is total rubbish.

http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-r...ve-health/

There are other, older studies that support this research too going back to C Everett Koop during the Reagan years who the pro-life people assumed would find guilt ridden women everywhere.

https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/201...h-problems

As long ago as 1989, mere months after Koop concluded there was no public health case against abortion, the American Psychological Association (APA) conducted an exhaustive review of the scientifically valid research on the subject and concluded that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy “does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.”2 University of California at San Francisco Professor Nancy Adler testified in Congress on behalf of the APA at that time that “severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses.”3 She observed that given the millions of U.S. women who had had abortions, “if severe reactions were common, there would be an epidemic of women seeking treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic.”

The religious right has tried to take the small percentage of women who have had emotional stress over an abortion and exploit the hell out of it. Blood sucking assholes.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like dancefortwo's post
04-04-2016, 01:32 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Stevil,
Awesome, questions for me.

(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  1. If one civilization is performing genocide against another civilization on the other side of the globe from you, do you give zero shits, or do you feel compelled to do something to stop it?
It happens quite a lot. I am glad that NZ isn't a waring nation. I am glad we don't rush into other lands and seek to fight and kill them based on our holier than though mentality.



(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What I'm getting at, is would you intervene even if it had no affect on you?
If I could forsee that this issue will spread across the globe and become a threat to NZ or its allies then we must band together and intervene. Otherwise it is not our business. I don't propose NZ go to Saudi Arabia and declare war on them so that women can have the right to drive cars.

(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If you wouldn't intervene yourself, would you look negatively at a 3rd civilization who did intervene to stop the genocide?
It's not my place to judge other nations that do seek to intervene.


(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  2. Is it your preference that infanticide be legal?
It is my preference that laws be challenged. Do we need this law? Are we exerting too much control. I don't know all the answers, but I do ask the questions. I'm trying to find out what others think is the purpose for govt and law. I have my idea on this but I want to know what others think.

I'm actually more interested in the reasoning people use when they suggest what the law should be. If they appeal to morality then its that obvious point of "Who's morality?" and when they state "socieites" or "we the people" then it is incredibly vague especially when they don't provide a method to getting the answer i.e. a majority vote.



(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  3. What if the infant is only one day into infancy?
I am open to infanticide. I am undecided whether it ought to be illegal or not. For me it is about what the consequences on society are if we allow it? Does society become dangerous? Will the mother or father get lynched?


(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  4. Would you feel compelled to stop infanticide?
Don't know.

(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  5. If not, at what point do you feel compelled to stop the killing of a developing human? Is it when it exits the womb, when it's 6 months old, 6 years old?
At the point where it becomes dangerous for society and dangerous for me. If people are allowed to kill other people then what is to stop people from killing me or my children?

(04-04-2016 06:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Oh yeah, regarding that whole cat thing. Go find a lion and try taking away it's fresh kill, or one of it's cubs, then report back on how that goes.
I doubt lions have the idea of property. They will fight over food of course, and they will protect their children. There are some animals that don't have a sense of family i.e. turtles and many fish. Different creatures have different values and "natural laws"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
04-04-2016, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2016 03:51 PM by Dark Light.)
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
Stevil Wrote:What I am trying to get at is to discover how her business becomes your business.
By this I mean "At what point are you wanting to intervene in this woman's affairs?"

I've attempted to explain this, and thought I illustrated it quite well. I'll give it another shot using another example.

Tribe A in Africa has been told by a God to kill the babies of Tribe B. Is it "my business" to stop them? Maybe it's not. After all I have no connection to Tribe A or Tribe B. I've not fathered any African children. I've never met the babies of Tribe B, and it is unlikely that I will ever meet any of the Tribespeople from either side. Despite all this, as a human being, I think it is wrong for Tribe A to kill the babies of Tribe B. If I were in a position to prevent it, I would. I think most people would. The difference with fetuses is the impact to the mother. As I've said before, I do not wish to take any action against any person against their will - except when not doing so allows them to infringe of other's rights. I consider a late term fetus to be worthy of protection. The only person who has been willing to challenge whether there is really much of a difference between a 9 month old fetus and a one day old baby has concocted some pretty weak to nonsensical reasons why one should be protected, and the other not. The only thing he or she has demonstrated is a lack on knowledge as to what a fetus is and is not capable of. Let's hear your reasoning, shall we?

Stevil Wrote:I read a pretty interesting article a while back. It was about the concept of "Natural Law". Note: this is NOT the catholic take on "Natural law".

Phew! Thank Jeebus, cause I don't know what the Catholics opinions on Natural Law really is!

Stevil Wrote:But the concept comes about because even in a society where the government gets to make up the rules, there are a few rules that the government cannot dictate but instead they are forced to do.
They must do this otherwise the people will rebel or perhaps they can get away with some laws but in order to do so they must exert a great deal of continued force and terror on the people to conform.

Alright, I think I might still be on board here. I'm assuming you are referring to "the basics" like murder, thievery, 'false imprisonment', assault, raping...things that people already knew were wrong even without the law being in place.

Stevil Wrote:It is about the nature of creatures. For example humans are different from cats. You can take a cat's favourite toy away and the cat will not get upset at you, the cat will not get vindictive and it will not seek revenge. Other cats will not come to the aid of this victim cat, they will not help it to get its toy back from you.
Cats have no idea of property. They do not own things, they do not have the concept of theft.

I would point out that cats (using your example) are willing to fight, even to the death in some cases to protect their territory, their food, their offspring, their mate. They just don't value that toy mouse nearly as much as you value shiny new car.

Stevil Wrote:Humans do. We understand the value of property. We claim things as ours and we will put ourselves into confrontation in order to keep our stuff. We may even, as a third party observer, put ourselves into confrontation to help a stranger keep their stuff when an attacker tries to take that stuff.
We understand the value of property and we understand the value of helping each other out in order to have some security about keeping our property within a society. We understand how important this is. We help others out because we ourselves see the danger of existing within a society where others can pinch our stuff. So we actively participate to create a society in which property is valued and protected, even if it means putting ourselves in harms way.

Like dogs, baboons, hyenas, lions, etc. Yes?

Stevil Wrote:We use a government, laws and police to support this idea. Instead of us putting ourselves in harms way, we use our trained and paid police force to do that for us. So that we can keep our stuff, so that we can be safe from murder, from assault etc.


We are unique in this way, I think. Trying to figure out where we are going...

Stevil Wrote:It's not based on idealism, although some people consider that law should be.

I think you are referring to ideology...

Stevil Wrote:Those idealists will use law to preserve the sanctity of things such as marriage, or sex. Thy outlaw gay marriage, gay relationships, they outlaw contraceptives, they outlaw IVF if they could. For them sex is purely between a man and a woman inside a marriage for the procreation of life. It is sacred and highly valued. For them, if other people desacrate that sacred act they are devaluing it for everyone. Which is a crime against all humanity. They are idealists and are fighting for an ideal even though their unmarried gay neighbors having sex in the privacy of their own house has NO impact on themselves.


I have to stop you there. Of course laws are made in agreement with 'the majorities" (by power) ideologies. Those people that have those unfair and nasty agendas would call you out and say the same thing about you.

Stevil Wrote:I liken your explaination somewhat similar (based on the way you have explained it). You value life, the sanctity of life. You consider that this life ought to be protected (beyond a certain developmental point). You don't think that you need to be directly impacted in order for you to justify forcing your will onto others. You have the opinion that the sanctity of life ought to be protected and you will cast your vote that way and support government and police to enforce this on others.

And I could equally say something to the effect of "You value the convenience of these women so greatly that you are willing to force your will will to snuff out an innocent life by casting a vote in opposition even though you aren't even directly impacted by this inconvenience." if I so wished. I wouldn't say this to a person, but I'm sure it will be quoted out of context for the purpose of calling me a misogynist later on anyway.

Stevil Wrote:My question for you (Oh, no, yet another set of questions!).
1. If you knew that a pregnant woman in her second trimester was going for an abortion, would you feel compelled to forcibly stop her?

As I've stated before, I would have to do some digging to figure a time frame. I don't currently have a "X day after fertilization is the day it's no longer okay". I'd probably need to dig out my old Lifespan Psychology book again. I'm okay with erring on the side of the would-be mother if there is question. Perhaps a better solution would be to leave it up to a doctor to give his/her opinion on whether X condition has been met. I'd say a good condition would be viability, which is what we have now.

Stevil Wrote:2. If you knew that a pregnant woman in her third trimester was going for an abortion, would you feel compelled to forcibly stop her?
As you've said before, this is what us humans have trained police and a government for. That is the best solution.

Stevil Wrote:3. What if she was just one day into her third trimester?
I've answered this in an earlier question.

Stevil Wrote:Why would you consider use of force against this woman?
If by this you mean contacting the authorities, for the same reason I'd contact the police if I saw a someone pointing a gun at another persons head.

Stevil Wrote:Is it just to support your own ideals or do you think her actions will make society unsafe for yourself and your own loved ones?
These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. My ideals happen to include protecting the lives of all innocent animals (including humans), regardless of whether I love them or not...as I've explained repeatedly.

Stevil Wrote:If a bystander saw you attack this woman in an attempt to save her unborn, would this bystander join you in attacking her, or would they likely try and save her from you?
You don't need to be concerned about me attacking a pregnant woman.


I'm looking forward to hearing about your reasons for wanting to protect a 9 month old fetus and not wanting to protect the same fetus the next day after making it's escape from the womb.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2016, 03:57 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(03-04-2016 10:39 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

Let me explain.

The leading cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancy. I know, right? So if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, you don't attack access to abortion facilities, you attack unwanted pregnancies. How do you do this? Comprehensive sex education. People need to be taught how their bodies work, and how to protect themselves, long before any of us would probably be comfortable with the idea of our children actually making use of that knowledge. There's no time to be a prude, there is no place for shaming of sexuality. Kids are curious, kids are going to experiment; and I'd rather they didn't wreck their futures out of easily remedied ignorance.

Next up, we need reliable and easy access to contraception and abortion services. In order to avoid potential pregnancies, women need to be able to easily control whether or not they get pregnant, and to quickly and easily terminate one if accidents happen. Pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment for people enjoying sex. You need to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies, and get an abortion quickly and easily so as to avoid those morally questionable late term abortions that the not-religious-zealots Pro-Life people don't like. Women need to be allowed to make that choice, and to have the resources to act on that choice. The right to an abortion is meaningless if abortions are made so hard to get as to be neigh unobtainable; which is the current tactic of the far-right to side step the Supreme Court.

Finally, we need a comprehensive social safety net. If a woman gets pregnant, and you don't want her to get an abortion, then you need to make having a child something that will no longer cripple her financially and destroy her prospects at an education or a future. So this would mean greater subsidies and support for pregnant women and mothers, including things like universal healthcare and affordable daycare. It's not enough to just want women to have babies, you need to put your money where your mouth is and be willing to support the women who do choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term instead of aborting it. I support a woman's right to chose, and I support their choice no mater what it is. If they chose to not have children, I support their access to contraception and abortion. If they chose to have a child, I support their access to healthcare and maternity benefits.

Pro-choice isn't just pro-abortion. To be pro-choice is to support the woman's right to make that choice themselves, and support the decision that they make; whatever it may be.

The religious-right want to outlaw abortion, make people ashamed of their sexuality, use pregnancy as a form of punishment, and subjugate the decisions of women to men and their Bibles. Of course, in all of the areas where such policies are in place, teen pregnancies and botched self-abortions are at their highest. Their policies are having the exact opposite effect. If you want less abortions, the path to that outcome is through greater education and support; not subjugation and shame.


I want there to be less abortions, and that's why I'm pro-choice.

First off, I'd consider myself pro-choice as well, though others here would consider me pro-life. Really, there is a huge middle ground and I'd fall somewhere in the middle.

BUUUTTT... if we expand your thought you could say that your anti-abortion, which is why your pro-abortion. If all women were required to have an abortion every time she got pregnant we can stop all future abortions from ever happening again in just one generation. Think of all the lives we'll save.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2016, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2016 04:28 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I've attempted to explain this, and thought I illustrated it quite well. I'll give it another shot using another example.

Tribe A in Africa has been told by a God to kill the babies of Tribe B. Is it "my business" to stop them? Maybe it's not. After all I have no connection to Tribe A or Tribe B. I've not fathered any African children. I've never met the babies of Tribe B, and it is unlikely that I will ever meet any of the Tribespeople from either side. Despite all this, as a human being, I think it is wrong for Tribe A to kill the babies of Tribe B. If I were in a position to prevent it, I would. I think most people would.
You would risk your life to get involved in a tribal war that is occuring halfway around the world?
I'm quite happy living my safe life in civilised NZ, ignoring the problems of the rest of the world. My children will benefit from me going to work and bring home money/food etc rather than me fighting (and dying) in some distant war.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The difference with fetuses is the impact to the mother.
Yes, she is in a unique position. Almost like hiding behind a hostage. You can't hurt her without risking hurting the unborn.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As I've said before, I do not wish to take any action against any person against their will - except when not doing so allows them to infringe of other's rights.
I understand this. I am not trying to paint you as a violent person.
I understand that you would deem yourself to be somewhat a hero if you were to risk your own life and safety in order to save the unborn child. And unfortunately you (or the police on your behalf) may need to get violent on the pregnant mother in order to save her unborn from her. But it seems that you value her unborn so much that you are willing to get violent.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I consider a late term fetus to be worthy of protection. The only person who has been willing to challenge whether there is really much of a difference between a 9 month old fetus and a one day old baby has concocted some pretty weak to nonsensical reasons why one should be protected, and the other not. The only thing he or she has demonstrated is a lack on knowledge as to what a fetus is and is not capable of. Let's hear your reasoning, shall we?
As for my reasoning. It doesn't come down to my definition of what is or isn't a person. I am not the saviour of the innocent persons. I am not superman.
It isn't about my own likes or dislikes. I am not about to force people to conform to my own ideals.
The thing is, I don't see it as my business to get involved here. I will not use or sanction use of force on this pregnant woman. It's her choice, not mine. I will live my life and let her live hers. I will not take it upon myself to interfere.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 11:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But the concept comes about because even in a society where the government gets to make up the rules, there are a few rules that the government cannot dictate but instead they are forced to do.
They must do this otherwise the people will rebel or perhaps they can get away with some laws but in order to do so they must exert a great deal of continued force and terror on the people to conform.

Alright, I think I might still be on board here. I'm assuming you are referring to "the basics" like murder, thievery, 'false imprisonment', assault, raping...things that people already knew were wrong even without the law being in place.
Without the right or wrong terminology.
We create a society that protects property rights because for us to live in this society we to know that our stuff is safe, that we don't have to guard it and fight to keep it. It would be hard to survive if our property weren't protected.
So for selfish reasons rather than ideals and moral righteousness we need laws to protect our property.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I would point out that cats (using your example) are willing to fight, even to the death in some cases to protect their territory, their food, their offspring, their mate. They just don't value that toy mouse nearly as much as you value shiny new car.
If cats were capable of creating laws they might have laws protecting territories, but not laws protecting property such as a toy mouse.
Cats are different to humans, we need certain laws due to the nature of humans. It's not a universal thing, it comes down to the nature of humans and practicality. It's not because we have knowlege of what is right vs wrong in the universe.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Like dogs, baboons, hyenas, lions, etc. Yes?
Possibly. Each creature is different. Sometimes we have similarities, sometimes we differ.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 11:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We use a government, laws and police to support this idea. Instead of us putting ourselves in harms way, we use our trained and paid police force to do that for us. So that we can keep our stuff, so that we can be safe from murder, from assault etc.
We are unique in this way, I think. Trying to figure out where we are going...
I am stating my thoughts on the purpose for government and law. I am expressing that we ought to define the purpose for law and create laws to fit that purpose rather than just come up with laws based on votes.
Having a purpose sets constraints on what laws can be made. Like USA has a constitution it sets constraints on what laws can be made. If government goes beyond this then the courts can override the governments laws, trow them out as being un-constitutional.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I have to stop you there. Of course laws are made in agreement with 'the majorities" (by power) ideologies.
No that is not true.
I would say that law makers can make things legal even if they don't like those things.
Cheating on your wife is legal, telling lies is legal, in many countries prostitution is legal.
This does not mean that the leaders think these things are moral. It just means that they don't see it as the government's place to stop people doing these things.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  And I could equally say something to the effect of "You value the convenience of these women so greatly that you are willing to force your will will to snuff out an innocent life by casting a vote in opposition even though you aren't even directly impacted by this inconvenience." if I so wished.
No, there is a big difference here.
My position, in not having a law is that people can decide for themselves. Mine is pro choice. voting for a law is the opposite, it is taking choice away from people and using force the make sure people don't make the choices that you don't want them to make.
You are forcing people, I am letting them decide for themselves.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'd say a good condition would be viability, which is what we have now.
Why viability?
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 11:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  2. If you knew that a pregnant woman in her third trimester was going for an abortion, would you feel compelled to forcibly stop her?
As you've said before, this is what us humans have trained police and a government for. That is the best solution.
I don't agree. If I wouldn't get violent myself in this situation then I don't see justification in sending police to get violent on my behalf.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 11:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Why would you consider use of force against this woman?
If by this you mean contacting the authorities, for the same reason I'd contact the police if I saw a someone pointing a gun at another persons head.
I can see danger for me and my children if we let people attack other people with guns.
I cannot see danger for me and my children if we let pregnant women have abortions. These are very different situations.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 11:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Is it just to support your own ideals or do you think her actions will make society unsafe for yourself and your own loved ones?
These aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
They are mututally exclusive in the case of abortion. How does society become unsafe for you and your loved ones when late term abortion is allowed?
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  My ideals happen to include protecting the lives of all innocent lives, regardless of whether I love them or not...as I've explained repeatedly.
I've heard this, I acknowledge that this is your position. I don't agree with it because I don't understand why it is your obligation to save innocent lives.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 11:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If a bystander saw you attack this woman in an attempt to save her unborn, would this bystander join you in attacking her, or would they likely try and save her from you?
You don't need to be concerned about me attacking a pregnant woman.
So why would you support the police in doing this in your stead?
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm looking forward to hearing about your reasons for wanting to protect a 9 month old fetus and not wanting to protect the same fetus the next day after making it's escape from the womb.
I'm only going to interfere if it becomes my business. If my life or my loved ones will become in danger then I will cast my vote for laws, otherwise I will cast my vote against laws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(04-04-2016 04:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I've attempted to explain this, and thought I illustrated it quite well. I'll give it another shot using another example.

Tribe A in Africa has been told by a God to kill the babies of Tribe B. Is it "my business" to stop them? Maybe it's not. After all I have no connection to Tribe A or Tribe B. I've not fathered any African children. I've never met the babies of Tribe B, and it is unlikely that I will ever meet any of the Tribespeople from either side. Despite all this, as a human being, I think it is wrong for Tribe A to kill the babies of Tribe B. If I were in a position to prevent it, I would. I think most people would.
You would risk your life to get involved in a tribal war that is occuring halfway around the world?
I'm quite happy living my safe life in civilised NZ, ignoring the problems of the rest of the world. My children will benefit from me going to work and bring home money/food etc rather than me fighting (and dying) in some distant war.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The difference with fetuses is the impact to the mother.
Yes, she is in a unique position. Almost like hiding behind a hostage. You can't hurt her without risking hurting the unborn.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As I've said before, I do not wish to take any action against any person against their will - except when not doing so allows them to infringe of other's rights.
I understand this. I am not trying to paint you as a violent person.
I understand that you would deem yourself to be somewhat a hero if you were to risk your own life and safety in order to save the unborn child. And unfortunately you (or the police on your behalf) may need to get violent on the pregnant mother in order to save her unborn from her. But it seems that you value her unborn so much that you are willing to get violent.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I consider a late term fetus to be worthy of protection. The only person who has been willing to challenge whether there is really much of a difference between a 9 month old fetus and a one day old baby has concocted some pretty weak to nonsensical reasons why one should be protected, and the other not. The only thing he or she has demonstrated is a lack on knowledge as to what a fetus is and is not capable of. Let's hear your reasoning, shall we?
As for my reasoning. It doesn't come down to my definition of what is or isn't a person. I am not the saviour of the innocent persons. I am not superman.
It isn't about my own likes or dislikes. I am not about to force people to conform to my own ideals.
The thing is, I don't see it as my business to get involved here. I will not use or sanction use of force on this pregnant woman. It's her choice, not mine. I will live my life and let her live hers. I will not take it upon myself to interfere.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Alright, I think I might still be on board here. I'm assuming you are referring to "the basics" like murder, thievery, 'false imprisonment', assault, raping...things that people already knew were wrong even without the law being in place.
Without the right or wrong terminology.
We create a society that protects property rights because for us to live in this society we to know that our stuff is safe, that we don't have to guard it and fight to keep it. It would be hard to survive if our property weren't protected.
So for selfish reasons rather than ideals and moral righteousness we need laws to protect our property.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I would point out that cats (using your example) are willing to fight, even to the death in some cases to protect their territory, their food, their offspring, their mate. They just don't value that toy mouse nearly as much as you value shiny new car.
If cats were capable of creating laws they might have laws protecting territories, but not laws protecting property such as a toy mouse.
Cats are different to humans, we need certain laws due to the nature of humans. It's not a universal thing, it comes down to the nature of humans and practicality. It's not because we have knowlege of what is right vs wrong in the universe.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Like dogs, baboons, hyenas, lions, etc. Yes?
Possibly. Each creature is different. Sometimes we have similarities, sometimes we differ.

(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  We are unique in this way, I think. Trying to figure out where we are going...
I am stating my thoughts on the purpose for government and law. I am expressing that we ought to define the purpose for law and create laws to fit that purpose rather than just come up with laws based on votes.
Having a purpose sets constraints on what laws can be made. Like USA has a constitution it sets constraints on what laws can be made. If government goes beyond this then the courts can override the governments laws, trow them out as being un-constitutional.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I have to stop you there. Of course laws are made in agreement with 'the majorities" (by power) ideologies.
No that is not true.
I would say that law makers can make things legal even if they don't like those things.
Cheating on your wife is legal, telling lies is legal, in many countries prostitution is legal.
This does not mean that the leaders think these things are moral. It just means that they don't see it as the government's place to stop people doing these things.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  And I could equally say something to the effect of "You value the convenience of these women so greatly that you are willing to force your will will to snuff out an innocent life by casting a vote in opposition even though you aren't even directly impacted by this inconvenience." if I so wished.
No, there is a big difference here.
My position, in not having a law is that people can decide for themselves. Mine is pro choice. voting for a law is the opposite, it is taking choice away from people and using force the make sure people don't make the choices that you don't want them to make.
You are forcing people, I am letting them decide for themselves.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'd say a good condition would be viability, which is what we have now.
Why viability?
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As you've said before, this is what us humans have trained police and a government for. That is the best solution.
I don't agree. If I wouldn't get violent myself in this situation then I don't see justification in sending police to get violent on my behalf.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  If by this you mean contacting the authorities, for the same reason I'd contact the police if I saw a someone pointing a gun at another persons head.
I can see danger for me and my children if we let people attack other people with guns.
I cannot see danger for me and my children if we let pregnant women have abortions. These are very different situations.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  These aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
They are mututally exclusive in the case of abortion. How does society become unsafe for you and your loved ones when late term abortion is allowed?
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  My ideals happen to include protecting the lives of all innocent lives, regardless of whether I love them or not...as I've explained repeatedly.
I've heard this, I acknowledge that this is your position. I don't agree with it because I don't understand why it is your obligation to save innocent lives.
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You don't need to be concerned about me attacking a pregnant woman.
So why would you support the police in doing this in your stead?
(04-04-2016 03:36 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm looking forward to hearing about your reasons for wanting to protect a 9 month old fetus and not wanting to protect the same fetus the next day after making it's escape from the womb.
I'm only going to interfere if it becomes my business. If my life or my loved ones will become in danger then I will cast my vote for laws, otherwise I will cast my vote against laws.

There are many responses which imply I believe or will do X or Y which I have clearly not implied. In other words, I believe you are being dishonest in your answers as it suites your argument. I will not address each of these because it is becoming rather tedious.

Example: Implying I'd fly to Africa all by my lonesome in an attempt to stop a bloodbath, though I clearly implied that I would be in no position to prevent such a tragedy "If I were in a position to prevent it, I would. I think most people would. "

Additionally, you have refused to answer the only question I have asked you, despite me answering close to a dozen of yours. So, I think our conversation has come to an end. Have a nice day.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: