I, For One, Am Shocked..

Wonderful World

..at the depths to which some will go to defend a ‘woman’s right to abortion’.

Been discussing abortion with pro-choicers from the internetz a while back, and it pretty much went like this:

Me: At what point does someone acquire the right to live?

Him: At the third Trimester.

Me: And why not at any time before that?

Him: Because at that point it’s conscious, can feel pain, and can possibly survive outside the womb.

Me: Newborn babies are hardly conscious and can hardly feel pain, much less one that’s at the third trimester. But even if you were right (which you aren’t), why does it suddenly get the right to live, unlike, say, some animals who are undoubtedly self-aware, conscious, and feel just as much pain as we do? — I mean, if that’s your criteria. Also, even if it can survive outside the womb, it won’t be able to for very long without the help of the mother or someone else. Which raises the question: if the mother who, barring instances of rape, chose to risk its being born in the first place isn’t morally obligated to care for it, why is anyone else, or, for that matter, why is everyone else (the state)?

Him: Well, because animals don’t have the rights we humans do. Besides, the mother has a right because it’s her body; “[o]nce a fetus is separate from the mother it becomes a separate human being with all the rights of a child…”.

Me: How would you avoid the charge of specie-ism, then? Surely you’re aware yours was an argument as fallacious as one that stems from racial or sexist prejudices. And, the mother and the fetus that is — for fun, let’s say — a day before being born, is, to you, a *single human-being*? Right. Is a pair of siamese twins a ‘single human-being’? Better: suppose someone is hooked up to a machine to survive — is he and the machine a ‘single human-being’?

Him: [He has nothing at this point, and so goes on and blathers:] “No woman under any circumstances should be forced to take any pregnancy to term against here [sic] will. No non person [sic] has any rights that usurp another human being. You join the human race upon birth and not one split second before.”

Me: In other words: for you it’s O.K. to kill the baby — oh, sorry, I mean the ‘fetus’! — even a day before it gets born, because, unluckily for it at that point, he hasn’t, in your words, “join[ed] the human race”.

Him: [Crickets chirping..]

———————————

And that, ladies and gents, is the level of inanity to which some people would go to protect “women’s reproductive rights”. Not all, of course (perhaps most there aren’t merely good at arguing, for all we know) but a lot. Certainly a scary lot. It’s not just one person there that I’ve encountered saying they’re all for baby-killing as long as it’s done in utero.

In fact some people do follow such views to their logical end, and what’s done is:  since, prior to birth, the mother is *technically* not a parent and the baby is *technically* not a child, the doctor waits for the baby to be half-way out, so to speak, and then proceeds to stab it.

Thusly, it’s not murder since it’s not human. And, technically, the mother can’t be guilty of child-abuse since she’s not a parent at that point.

[cue in: Louis Armstrong’s ‘It’s A Wonderful World’..]

Advertisements

Posted on October 17, 2013, in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. Certainly a scary lot.

    The depths plumbed in the service to taking away a woman’s rights is also quite scary, one could say even toxic, as denying women bodily autonomy makes them oh, well, less than full human beings.

    Women have been fighting for status as human beings for entirely to long, thanks for prolonging the fight for this most basic of human rights.

    • Women have been what? “Fighting for status as human beings”? Are you like from the 15th century or something?

      The guy I mention in the post thinks a woman has a right to kill a baby that’s a day before being born. You know what’s different from a baby that’s a day before being born and one that’s just been born? Right — nothing. So, sorry I’m not convinced that women have the right to kill their own babies.

  2. Are you like from the 15th century or something?

    History what is it?

    Women have been chattel for the majority of recorded history. A good place to start your historical voyage of discovery would be determining when women could vote in the political process. Let me assure you, it was much after the 15th century.

    You know what’s different from a baby that’s a day before being born and one that’s just been born?

    Not being born means that the fetus is still using the mother’s resources – energy, food and waste disposal systems. It is well within her right to decide how she uses her resources, as it is her body.

    Coming up with absurd hypothetical situations where you try to make it okay to take women’s rights away is fairly shitty behaviour. Of course, this is fairly par for the course for the forced birth advocates and if you roll that way, so be it.

    So, sorry I’m not convinced that women have the right to kill their own babies.

    Don’t be sorry, just stop the hate for women. Women are fully autonomous human beings that have the right to make decisions about their bodies. Women are not incubators or slaves to anyone, nor should they be regarded as such.

  3. “Let me assure you, it was much after the 15th century.”

    How fascinating. And that justifies, uhm, ‘baby-killing’, why exactly?

    “Not being born means that the fetus is still using the mother’s resources – energy, food and waste disposal systems. It is well within her right to decide how she uses her resources, as it is her body.”

    A newborn baby “is still using the mother’s resources – energy, food”, and what have you. Perhaps not her “waste disposal system”, but what’s the difference? Can “its my body!” justify leaving a newborn infant to die? And, barring instances of rape, let’s not forget she made a choice long before this choice you want codified as inviolable.

    “Coming up with absurd hypothetical situations where you try to make it okay to take women’s rights away is fairly shitty behaviour. Of course, this is fairly par for the course for the forced birth advocates and if you roll that way, so be it.”

    It isn’t merely a “hypothetical situation” — it DOES in fact happen as it is the inescapable consequence of your view. If to you, and to other demented people like you, the baby isn’t human till after birth, then killing it a second before birth is morally justifiable.

    You rather oddly on the one hand wholeheartedly agree to this and on the other say it’s ‘shitty behaviour’ to point out that you agree to this. Can you explain that?

    “Don’t be sorry, just stop the hate for women. Women are fully autonomous human beings that have the right to make decisions about their bodies. Women are not incubators or slaves to anyone, nor should they be regarded as such.”

    So it’s because I “hate women”. That’s it. Because I see no ontologically significant difference between a fetus and an infant and therefore think babies have a right to live, I must thusly “hate women” — also, I must thusly think them to be “slaves or incubators”.

    • A newborn baby “is still using the mother’s resources – energy, food”, and what have you. Perhaps not her “waste disposal system”, but what’s the difference?

      The baby isn’t in the mother’s body anymore. Or was that a trick question?

      let’s not forget she made a choice long before this choice you want codified as inviolable.

      Coitus does not remove the rights of a woman to her body.

      It isn’t merely a “hypothetical situation” — it DOES in fact happen as it is the inescapable consequence of your view.

      So then what is the prevalence of day before birth abortions? You’ve just claimed this happens in the real world, now back up your claim or accept the fact that it was indeed, just a shitty hypothetical.

      You rather oddly on the one hand wholeheartedly agree to this and on the other say it’s ‘shitty behaviour’ to point out that you agree to this. Can you explain that?

      It is deplorable behaviour because trying to find a situation where it is okay to strip women of their fundamental human rights. That is easily categorized as shitty behaviour.

      So it’s because I “hate women”.

      How else would you describe the pathological desire to strip women of their human rights?

      also, I must thusly think them to be “slaves or incubators”.

      So, how would you describe your body being used against your will? Or did you have a scenario in mind that portrays forced birth somehow not as slavery?

      • You’re really grasping at straws here; a few inches of a change in location hardly makes human what to you is sub-human. So it matters not a whit whether the baby “isn’t in the mothers womb anymore” — in both cases the baby requires the mother’s resources. Why is it that in one case the mother can happily decide to withdraw these “resources” and on the other she can’t?

        Also, it has nothing to do with “coitus” and everything to do with her initial ‘choice’ to risk pregnancy and be bringing a HUMAN BEING into the world.

        “So then what is the prevalence of day before birth abortions? You’ve just claimed this happens in the real world, now back up your claim or accept the fact that it was indeed, just a shitty hypothetical.”

        It doesn’t matter if it happened a day before or a week before or whatever. The fact remains is that your view makes you — actually, requires you — to say any baby at any point before being born is sub-human, and therefore can be killed. And cases like that of Kermit Gosnell come to mind. You’d have to be kosher with the actions of this guy to be consistent — in fact, you just admitted you are.

        Now, you can say pointing out the inescapable consequence of your views is “shitty behaviour” all you like, but you’ll excuse me if I or anyone else take this to mean that you’ve scarcely been able to render even yourself impervious to its bovine stink.

        “It is deplorable behaviour because trying to find a situation where it is okay to strip women of their fundamental human rights. That is easily categorized as shitty behaviour.”

        Stop moving the goalposts. If you agree that it’s morally justifiable to kill a baby that’s a day before being born, then pointing this out to you or others like you isn’t shitty behaviour. It’s just something you’ll have to accept and deal with.

        You: “Look, I think mothers have a right to kill their babies, but to remind me of it is ‘shitty behaviour’, O.K.!” — hilarious.

        And, please, give me a fucking break. Apparently I “hate women” and think them to be “slaves or incubators” because I think babies have the right to live. Riiight. People like you who have zero convincing arguments for their views tend to take the quickest rhetorical approach against rational discourse.

        I guess it doesn’t even factor in your logic that a lot of women are against abortion, too. I guess to you they “hate women” too, and think women (and themselves, for that matter) to be “slaves or incubators”.

  4. a few inches of a change in location hardly makes human what to you is sub-human.

    I think you’re missing the point. You can give whatever status you’d like to the fetus. It is irrelevant in the arguments I present. What is fascinating is that you would like to somehow give the fetus more rights that a fully formed adult has when it comes to using another persons body.

    Why is it that in one case the mother can happily decide to withdraw these “resources” and on the other she can’t?

    I thought we covered that with the whole inside/outside of the mother previously. Or did you want to continue to argue(?) that being in the womb is just like being outside the womb?

    Also, it has nothing to do with “coitus” and everything to do with her initial ‘choice’ to risk pregnancy and be bringing a HUMAN BEING into the world.

    It certainly seems it does matter as before coitus a woman has full bodily autonomy and after coitus somehow, magically, as you postulate she does not have rights to her own body anymore.

    It doesn’t matter if it happened a day before or a week before or whatever.

    So you still don’t get the idea that using absurd hypothetical situations is dumb? Third trimester abortions are rare as is, and the frequency decreases close to zero when the pregnancy is due. It makes no sense to base an argument on events that rarely happen.

    to say any baby at any point before being born is sub-human, and therefore can be killed.

    I’ve never once referred to the fetus as being sub-human, and as stated earlier you can call it, ascribe whatever rights you’d like to it etc. It still does not trump a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy.

    And cases like that of Kermit Gosnell come to mind.

    Oh indeed, it is tragic that women have to go to poorly inspected and questionable facilities to get a legal medical procedure done. It is because of the views you espouse that women have to suffer and sometimes die, their crime, trying to do what is best for themselves and their families. It would be nice if women could easily access reproductive services at safe regulated medical facilities.

    You’d have to be kosher with the actions of this guy to be consistent — in fact, you just admitted you are.

    Oh, hello moral high horse. Can I play too? You’re a murderer too because the views you endorse kill women like Savita Halappanavar. So, welcome to the club.

    Now, you can say pointing out the inescapable consequence of your views is “shitty behaviour” all you like,

    Denying women their agency and advocating for them to have status less than human beings *is* shitty behaviour. I’m not sure how you keep missing that point, but carry on.

    Stop moving the goalposts.

    My position has not changed. I’m curious as to where you get this from.

    If you agree that it’s morally justifiable to kill a baby that’s a day before being born, then pointing this out to you or others like you isn’t shitty behaviour.

    Oh, I get it now. Your fetus-fetish erases women from the equation. She doesn’t get to have rights, or a say on what goes on her body. See above statement, heck I’ll even bold it so you can see what I’m saying rather than what you think I’m saying.

    “Look, I think mothers have a right to kill their babies”,

    Women have a right to terminate a pregnancy at any time. It is her body, her resources and the risks of pregnancy are hers to take.

    Apparently I “hate women” and think them to be “slaves or incubators” because I think babies have the right to live.

    You would deny women rights to their body, nullifying their bodily autonomy, making them less than human and you’re having a problem seeing that as *not* a hatred of women?

    People like you who have zero convincing arguments for their views tend to take the quickest rhetorical approach against rational discourse.

    Because advocating for bodily autonomy and rights that are enshrined in western constitutional democracies isn’t convincing. And do tell me about how whinging “what aboooooout the baaaaabiessss!!!1!” is rational discourse.

    I guess to you they “hate women” too, and think women (and themselves, for that matter) to be “slaves or incubators”.

    I believe we are talking about you and your odious views of women. The misogyny expressed in your views is the topic of discussion. Or did you want to go down the argumentum ad populum route a bit further?

    • Nowhere did I imply the fetus had more rights. The fetus is human and deserves the right to live just like any other human being. It’s a prudential question, say, if the mother’s life were in danger, and I wouldn’t necessarily be against abortion in those instances.

      You can continue to refer me to your feelings about the huge difference between a baby that’s in utero to one that is not, but the fact remains: you have hitherto been unable to give a distinction that’s convincing. In both cases the baby requires the mother’s resources, so you can shove your ridiculous ‘resources’ argument.

      “It certainly seems it does matter as before coitus a woman has full bodily autonomy and after coitus somehow, magically, as you postulate she does not have rights to her own body anymore.”

      What she doesn’t have rights over is the body of the human being she chose to risk bringing into this world. Again, since you’re keen to avoid the question: can “it’s my body” justify a mother leaving her newborn infant to die? I mean, it is her body; she’s perfectly within her right to refrain from wasting her ‘resources’, as you’ve previously put it.

      “So you still don’t get the idea that using absurd hypothetical situations is dumb?”

      How very amusing it is that what you call an “absurd” and “dumb” hypothetical situation is one that you unreservedly find kosher. Of course it’s “absurd” and “dumb” — to me, not you! You agree the mother has a right to kill her baby at any point before birth. That such instances are rarefied scarcely matters. Rather what does is that they are the inescapable consequence what you believe. You can continue to avoid this all you want and call it “absurd”, “dumb”, or “shitty”, and I can continue to see you dimly for it, but the fact remains: it’s something you agree with. So, like I said earlier, that you call it “dumb” and “absurd” only reveals that you haven’t quite convinced yourself of your own arguments, and that you, rather cowardly, cannot face up to their inescapable consequences.

      There are about 1,032 late term abortions per year done in the U.S. alone. And, just like a newborn infant, one that’s beyond the third-trimester is already viable. But that’s beside the point, which is that I don’t have to pretend you didn’t say you believed a mother had a right to kill her baby at any point before birth. That’s what you said so it’d be best if you own up to it.

      “I’ve never once referred to the fetus as being sub-human..”

      Oh O.K., you didn’t. Sorry! You just said that, unlike a full grown dog, or whatever pet you can imagine, it can be killed by the mother for any reason whatsoever, which makes it, uhm, not ‘sub-human’, apparently.

      “Oh indeed, it is tragic that women have to go to poorly inspected and questionable facilities to get a legal medical procedure done.”

      Fool. Kermit Gosnell did what he did not because women didn’t have access to the “legal medical procedure”, but because, largely due to people like you, there exists a big market for late-term abortions.

      “Oh, hello moral high horse. Can I play too? You’re a murderer too because the views you endorse kill women like Savita Halappanavar. So, welcome to the club.”

      Wrong! I’m not against an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger. And a ‘murderer’ murders people — you know, kind of what abortionists do. I’m saying humans have the right not to be murdered, while you on the other hand oddly won’t extend that right to babies. So if there’s any murderer here, it’s you.

      “Denying women their agency and advocating for them to have status less than human beings *is* shitty behaviour.”

      Again, nobody is advocating for them to have “status less than human beings”. You could at least stop the childish strawmanning! Why is it that to you a mother has a right to withdraw umbilical cord support to her baby but is morally — and legally — required to support her child after he’s born, and until he reaches adulthood? Go figure.

      And, another thing, that’s not what you previously called ‘shitty behaviour’, let me remind you. You said “[c]oming up with absurd hypothetical situations.. is fairly shitty behaviour”. Again, why is pointing out a situation that you would wholeheartedly advocate till your last breath “shitty behaviour”? You seriously don’t see how ridiculously contradictory you sound in calling it such?

      Me: “If you agree that it’s morally justifiable to kill a baby that’s a day before being born..”

      You: ‘I’m not saying that — I’m saying: “Women have a right to terminate a pregnancy at any time.”

      Me: The Fuck!?

      You just went on and said you weren’t saying that which you went on to clarify you were saying!

      “You would deny women rights to their body, nullifying their bodily autonomy, making them less than human and you’re having a problem seeing that as *not* a hatred of women?”

      You cannot be this dense. What I am in fact denying them is the right to KILL A HUMAN BEING. You know, like what I deny, oh I dunno, EVERYONE ELSE.

      “Because advocating for bodily autonomy and rights that are enshrined in western constitutional democracies isn’t convincing. And do tell me about how whinging “what aboooooout the baaaaabiessss!!!1!” is rational discourse.”

      O.K., then, so the same “bodily autonomy and rights that are enshrined in western constitutional democracies” extend to mothers vis-a-vis newborn babies, why not exactly? Because ‘in womb and out of womb’ arguments. Oh, and also, ‘resources arguments’. Yeah right. And, I know it’s inconvenient for you, it’s “dumb” and “shitty”, I know, but it IS about BABIES. If you remember, YOU said that it had zero rights at no second before birth!

      “I believe we are talking about you and your odious views of women.”

      Thanks, but no thanks, for those further demonstrations of illogic. If I “hate women” for such and such reasons, then women who hold to the same views would, by your logic, “hate women” too, and for exactly the same reasons. You could at least get THIS right.

      • Nowhere did I imply the fetus had more rights.

        Actually, every argument you’ve made has been for giving more rights to the fetus than a fully formed human female. Every argument you’ve made violates the notion that women are human beings and have bodily autonomy. Just to be clear.

        but the fact remains: you have hitherto been unable to give a distinction that’s convincing.

        More examples will not help if you cannot distinguish between in and outside the uterus.

        In both cases the baby requires the mother’s resources, so you can shove your ridiculous ‘resources’ argument.

        Women the fetus in inside the woman, the woman can only end the relationship by terminating the pregnancy. Outside the woman, another family member, social services, et cetera can be called on to fulfill the woman’s role. The distinction between born and unborn seems fairly obvious and I assumed it would not need to be illustrated.

        What she doesn’t have rights over is the body of the human being she chose to risk bringing into this world.

        Well actually she does, as it is her body and her resources are directly being used by the fetus. Bodily autonomy means you get to choose what goes on with your body. Forced pregnancy clearly violates this principle.

        That such instances are rarefied scarcely matters.

        Therefore, you should not drive a car because you *might* die in a fiery wreck. If we follow your logic to its end conclusion. So hand over your keys, because it likely it won’t happen, but it does happen.

        Above, is a counter example of *showing* the absurdity of your claim. I really can’t help you anymore than that.

        Fool. Kermit Gosnell did what he did not because women didn’t have access to the “legal medical procedure”,

        Oh, because women want to go to poorly regulated sketchy individuals rather than safe regulated hospitals and clinics where they can get the reproductive care they need.

        Again, nobody is advocating for them to have “status less than human beings”. You could at least stop the childish strawmanning!

        Denying women’s rights does make them less than human. I’m not sure how you can square that particular circle.

        What I am in fact denying them is the right to KILL A HUMAN BEING.

        No human being has the right to use another human being without their consent. Thus, if a woman withdraws her consent to use her body, then we must respect her decision.

        YOU said that it had zero rights at no second before birth!

        Your keys please – because fiery car wrecks.

        for those further demonstrations of illogic.

        Not wanting to give women full bodily autonomy is consistent with hating women. Advocating that women should have less rights and control over their body is consistent with hating women, or at least the notion of women being regarded fully human.

        then women who hold to the same views would, by your logic, “hate women” too

        Internalized misogyny is a thing you can google, I suggest you do so.

  5. You’re clearly an idiot.

    If you were to be believed, the difference between a fetus — even one that’s a day before being born — and a newborn infant is that, with respect to the womb, one is in and one is out.

    Profound. Very profound.

    The question is really one of principle. Why should anyone — “another family member, social services, et cetera” — be morally obligated to care for the infant when the mother hersef isn’t? If the mother can gleefully deny her resources to her own newborn infant, then so can everyone else!

    “Bodily autonomy means you get to choose what goes on with your body.”

    It also means a mother who fancies leaving her infant to die can do so without feeling the slightest bit irresponsible. I mean, her body her resources, right?

    “Therefore, you should not drive a car because you *might* die in a fiery wreck. If we follow your logic to its end conclusion. So hand over your keys, because it likely it won’t happen, but it does happen.”

    You are either a blatant sophist or are really that stupid. I’m going with stupid.

    The argument isn’t that your abortion fantasies must cease and desist to avoid day-before-birth infants dying in large numbers (despite there’s also that) but rather that your view entails they can be killed. My argument is a reductio: if an unborn has no right to live at all, then any flimsy reason will suffice to justify a mother killing her baby at any point before birth.

    So your analogies — and, by extention, you — are downright idiotic.

    “Not wanting to give women full bodily autonomy is consistent with hating women. Advocating that women should have less rights and control over their body is consistent with hating women, or at least the notion of women being regarded fully human.”

    And you won’t extend this “full bodily autonomy” to mothers vis-a-vis their newborn infants because of the impeccable logic in your ‘in and out of womb’ arguments. Right.

  6. You’re clearly an idiot.

    Clearly you are dedicated to philosophical principles. How could you not with sixteen (16!) articles tagged with the very word.

    Hmmm… *thinking of debate and philosophical concepts* – what am I looking for, oh yes. Charity. Do spend some time and look up what the Principle of Charity is and how that would apply here. I think google can help. Because, despite the mild pretensions, you’re doing it wrong.

    My argument is a reductio:

    Your argument is shit. 🙂 If you can’t handle it when your methods are used against against you, then perhaps you shouldn’t use them. Using absurd hypothetical situations to justify taking away women’s rights sucks. But please continue with the philoso-fap if it you feel it makes your argument more important.

    but rather that your view entails they can be killed.

    OMG, its almost like you understand what I’m saying. Women have the right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason, as it is their body and their resources. I think repeating this for the nth time may just make it stick (probably not).

    And you won’t extend this “full bodily autonomy” to mothers vis-a-vis their newborn infants because of the impeccable logic in your ‘in and out of womb’ arguments.

    No person has the right to use my bodily organs without my consent for their purposes regardless of their status. This is key to the concept of bodily autonomy, the very same bodily autonomy you want to sacrifice on the alter of your misogynistically slavish fetus-fetish.

    If the above is not true then we’ll see you down at the mandatory organ donation clinic where you will be forced to donate parts of your body in order to save other lives – don’t be a murderer now, and no excuses for living far away, in the woods, (add list of absurd situations here) or not owning a car (brave the *fiery car wreckage*, I believe in you).

    This is sad denuded state you advocate for women. Women are not chattel, not incubators, not baby machines. They are human beings with rights that, despite your best attempts to handwave/philosowank them away, persist.

    • How very typical it is for someone who now sees the sheer stupidity for which he’s been called out to request that he be given a charitable reading.

      Look, I don’t know you from Adam, but what is certain — as it is demonstrable — is that you are either an idiot or a sophist, as will be clear (if it wasn’t clear already) below.

      You are all for mothers murdering their babies for any reason at any point before birth; you: “[w]omen have the right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason”. Yet ponting this out to you is apparently “shitty behaviour”, “absurd”, and whatnot. You’re really only saying that the logical consequence of your view is “shitty” and “absurd”. I can only surmise at this point that, due to a lack of cranial capacity, you’ll never see this blatant contradiction you keep making.

      You keep bandying about this ‘her body, her resources’ argument as if it is yet to be refuted. Again, for the bazillionth time: if, in your words, “[n]o person has the right to use my bodily organs without my consent for their purposes..”, then why is it that a mother can’t leave her newborn infant to die? If this ‘her body, her resources’ argument is as absolute as you claim it is, then a mother cannot leave her newborn infant to die, why exactly? “Bodily autonomy”, you say? –why then are parents morally obligated to care for their children? My question earlier, which you’re avoiding and will probably continue to do so, is this: why is it that to you a mother has a right to withdraw umbilical cord support to her baby but is morally — and legally — required to support her child after he’s born, and until he reaches adulthood?

      I’ve asked these pertinent questions more than once now — actually, I’ve asked them at every juncture of this discussion. Your only response is to say I “hate women” and think them to be “slaves or incubators”, and to make ridiculous false “fiery car-wrecks” analogies.

      In fact, here are more demonstrations of illogic from he who I’m supposed to read charitably:

      “If the above [‘that nobody can use my body/my resources’] is not true then we’ll see you down at the mandatory organ donation clinic where you will be forced to donate parts of your body in order to save other lives..”

      We have something like that already (depending on where you live, actually), although not exactly. It’s called medicare.

      Now, I guess I will have to explain yet again why your analogy is false, if not, like your last one, downright stupid. So — sigh — here goes:

      We don’t have ‘mandatory organ donation clinics’ because everyone has the right to live. Having your organs harvested for others’ use won’t be helpful toward that end. It isn’t our fault — we had no decision in the matter — that some people might need our organs to live.

      Barring instances of rape or when a mother’s life is in danger, a human fetus, on the other hand, just like ones child (which is why I keep making the equivalency above) IS the parent’s obligation, since it was HER/their choice to risk bringing it into this world. Of course I’m assuming here we both agree that humans are ends in themselves and not a means to one, which is, amusingly, something that has, in your overall picture of reality, zero ontological base — but let that pass for now.

      That is why parents are morally obligated to provide for their children — it’s a crime to not do so where I’m from. That’s why your ‘my body, my resources’ argument is not absolute.

      That you don’t get these, and that you keep making these blitheringly idiotic analogies is why I say you’re demonsrtably either an idiot or a sophist.

  7. You are all for mothers murdering their babies for any reason at any point before birth;

    And there you go assuming your definition is correct. Fetus does not equal full human being. And yet you would give the fetus more rights than the mother (the right to use another human being against their will, to be concise). That is the shitty part, the part *you* refuse to accept or acknowledge.

    We don’t have ‘mandatory organ donation clinics’ because everyone has the right to live.

    Actually, not everyone has the right to live, as in some countries, the state mandates taking the life of certain people for committing crimes. So let’s walk back your blanket assertions a touch, shall we? If we’re still playing the philos-wank game, one of your premises has been proven false and thus conclusions drawn from it must also be false.

    a human fetus, on the other hand, just like ones child

    Bullshit. How many birthday parties do you celebrate for a fetus? Have you talked to a fetus recently? Knitted a warm fetus blanket? Have high tea with the local resident fetus? Did it respond? The equivalence you are attempting to draw is clearly false, unless of course you also think that acorns are equivalent to oak trees.

    why is it that to you a mother has a right to withdraw umbilical cord support to her baby but is morally — and legally — required to support her child after he’s born, and until he reaches adulthood?

    Because of the direct connection between mother and fetus. If the woman no longer consents to her body being used directly by another, then it must go. Children that are born can be given up to social services, adoption, care of grandparents etc. You cannot do that with a fetus, as its existence is fully dependent on the mother. There are to date, no alternatives that keep both the woman’s rights and the fetus intact.

    Your body being used without your consent is slavery. I’m not sure how many more times I can reiterate that. The common rejoinder to this is that the woman chose to have sex…fine, but as stated earlier sex does not remove a woman’s ability to give or revoke consent.

    That is why parents are morally obligated to provide for their children — it’s a crime to not do so where I’m from. That’s why your ‘my body, my resources’ argument is not absolute.

    ‘Fetus’ does not equal ‘child’. So when do you think it is appropriate to strip women of their rights? Where shall we house the birth offenders, who dare exercise their wishes in regards to how their body is used? How should we restrain them if they are intent on terminating their pregnancy? How much more like breeding stock would you like to make women in your ‘ethical quest’ to preserve life?

    I’m curious, as the position you take is very similar to the position stated by other forced birth advocates, and of course your justifications are the same: preserving ‘life’ by dehumanizing and subjugating women. Tell me how you square birth slavery with your purportedly ethical ontology?

    .

    • “Fetus does not equal full human being. “

      So, say, a second after being born, this thing which was a moment ago a ‘non-full human-being’ becomes a ‘full human being’. Again, you’re all for murdering babies for any reason at any point before birth, so explain to me how a few inches of change in location suddenly makes this ‘non full human being’ into a full one.

      I’ll also note with amusement that you previously said you’ve never once referred to the fetus as ‘sub-human’. So it can be killed for absolutely any reason whatsoever, and is, for you, a ‘non-full human being’, but it isn’t ‘sub-human’. Any competent reader out there can plainly see why I am honestly of the mind that you are a complete idiot.

      “Actually, not everyone has the right to live, as in some countries, the state mandates taking the life of certain people for committing crimes.”

      Well, yes, I was excluding those who for one reason or another do not have the right to live, of course. I don’t know how this refutes anything I’ve said. It’s quite obvious (although, maybe not to you) that leaving some criminals around, or failing to properly disincentivize certain crimes, doesn’t help other’s ‘right’ to live, so there you go. But it’s quite hilarious that you’re actually making this equivalency (that babies have the same moral status as deathrow convicts) with a straight face.

      “Bullshit. How many birthday parties do you celebrate for a fetus? Have you talked to a fetus recently? Knitted a warm fetus blanket? Have high tea with the local resident fetus? Did it respond? “

      Have you been able to do any of these things for a newborn infant? Well, presumably you could ‘knit’ for it a warm blanket, but is that what distinguishes a fetus (even one that’s a day before being born, mind you) from a newborn infant? If that is so, then you truly are profound (being sarcastic, you clearly aren’t).

      What is your criteria for being a ‘fully-formed human being’?

      “Because of the direct connection between mother and fetus. If the woman no longer consents to her body being used directly by another, then it must go. Children that are born can be given up to social services, adoption, care of grandparents etc.”

      Here’s a thought experiment. Say a mother and her infant were stranded in an island and the rescue team can only arrive after nine months. So, in this scenario, the mother can leave her newborn infant to die because ‘my body, my resources’ arguments? How is this ‘direct connection’ different from what you would presumably call the ‘indirect connection’ between a mother and her newborn infant? (“Well, because the umbilical cord! Duh!”?) And, again, why should ‘social services, adoption agencies, grandparents’, or whoever, in principle, be obliged to care for babies whose own parents aren’t even morally obligated to care for?

      “Your body being used without your consent is slavery. I’m not sure how many more times I can reiterate that. “

      I’m not sure how many times I have to reiterate that a mother being forced to care for her newborn infant, or someone being forced to pay child support, is likewise, by your definition, a slave. You NEVER seem to be getting this.

      “‘Fetus’ does not equal [full human]”

      So you keep saying. What is your criteria then?

      “So when do you think it is appropriate to strip women of their rights? Where shall we house the birth offenders, who dare exercise their wishes in regards to how their body is used?”

      I’ll just ignore this display of emotional balderdash for the moment and wait for your answers to the above.

  1. Pingback: Arbourist The Happy Abortionist’s Impeccable Logic. | The Apologist

  2. Pingback: Responding to Arbourist the Happy Abortionist Part Deux | The Apologist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: