so supposing I went to a bar and was
inhailing passive smoke if I choose not to
allow that smoke to enter my body would I
have the right to kill the smokers in that
bar?
Nobody made me go to that bar, I choose to
of my own accord, I must accept the
consequences that come with going or leave
- the fact I have visited many times
before and no one has been smoking has
little to do with the fact or that I have
used a gas mask in previous visits but
this time has it has failed none of these
give me the right to kill the smokers.
you can cough and spit out the sputum.
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-15-04 12:27pm
You have a right to leave that bar or move
somewhere else. I don't understand
what's it's so hard to grasp that all born
people have the right to life (considering
they haven't comitted a heinous crime)?
If you are born.. You have the right to
life. Stop comparing apples to oranges
people.. It's getting tiring.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-15-04 16:56pm
"you have a right to leave that bar or
move somewhere else"
but I have to have the right to abort
them, its not fair.. I must be able to
abort them if I am to have full autonomy
of my body, I have every right to sit
where I want and decide what goes into my
body - these "smokers" are forcing their
habbit on me.
Are you saying smokers have more rights
than none smokers?
"what's it's so hard to grasp that all
born people have the right to life
(considering they haven't comitted a
heinous crime)?"
what is so hard grasp.. All non smokers
have the right to life by terminating
smokers we are not only protecting our
right to full autonomy but also our right
to life!
By terminating smokers we arnt hurting
anybodyin fact we are protecting people,
it is a must to futher the cause of all
humanity to live in a clean smoke free
society!
"if you are born.. You have the right to
life"
if your a none smoker... You have the
right to life
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-15-04 17:44pm
Ok.. Let me be more clear. You also
have a right to ask that person to go
somewhere else or ask the bartender to do
something if they refuse to. They can
always go smoke outside and smokers have a
little less rights than non in a way
because if they want to smoke.. Than that
is their choice but they can't smoke where
others will be affected.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-15-04 17:54pm
"you also have a right to ask that person
to go somewhere else or ask the bartender
to do something if they refuse to"
they have the right to refuse!
"they can always go smoke outside and
smokers have a little less rights than non
in a way because if they want to smoke..
Than that is their choice but they can't
smoke where others will be affected."
they can refuse to go outside or the bar
can refuse to force them to go outside
after all its the bars right to allow
people in who it wants and peoples rights
to go in and smoke if the bar dosnt mind,
none smokers also have the right to go in
and smoke or not - or not go in at all if
they dont want to....
But you miss the whole point.... Tatsp
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Posted: 11-15-04 19:28pm
poopoopoo
wrote:
prolife
wrote:
still, if a woman has
chosen to be sexually active, she has
forfeited the right to control what is in
her body.
there you have the basic position of the
anti-choice proponent: it is, essentially,
that women who have sex are either mothers
or whores.
No, antichoice, a woman does not forfeit
the right to control what is in her body
when she has sex. This is the
basic sexism inherent in your argument --
it is still only the woman who has to
suffer the consequences.
Availability of abortion is only a small
way to go to achieve equality -- it is
still the woman who suffers the
consequences, but at least she can curtail
them if she
chooses.
the principle is this: if you take a risk,
you must take responsibility for it.
This means you must be willing to accept
the potential consequences.
If a woman chooses to be sexually active,
the potential consequence is that she may
become pregnant. In having an
abortion, she would be removing this
consequence, by killing another person.
So, to say abortion is right, is to say
that it is right to kill an innocent
person in order to remove a consequence
that another person has rightfully
incurred.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 11-16-04 20:21pm
prolife
wrote:
the principle is this: if
you take a risk, you must take
responsibility for it. This means
you must be willing to accept the
potential
consequences.
I will accept the risk
and will responsibly obtain an abortion.
Quote:
if a woman
chooses to be sexually active, the
potential consequence is that she may
become pregnant. In having an
abortion, she would be removing this
consequence, by killing another
person.
if you see the z/e/f as
a person, which I don't, then don't obtain
an abortion. If, though, you're like me
and recognize that it's not a person and
you have a right to your own body, then
obtain an abortion. It's really no ones
business what I do with my own body.
Quote:
so, to say
abortion is right, is to say that it is
right to kill an innocent person in order
to remove a consequence that another
person has rightfully
incurred.
so, you think there
should be punishment for having sex? Are
pregnancy, child birth, and children that
punishment?
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Posted: 11-16-04 21:15pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
prolife
wrote:
the principle is this: if
you take a risk, you must take
responsibility for it.
This means you must be willing to accept
the potential
consequences.
I will accept the risk
and will responsibly obtain an abortion.
Quote:
if a woman
chooses to be sexually active, the
potential consequence is that she may
become pregnant. In having
an abortion, she would be removing this
consequence, by killing another
person.
if you see the z/e/f as
a person, which I don't, then don't obtain
an abortion. If, though, you're
like me and recognize that it's not a
person and you have a right to your own
body, then obtain an abortion.
It's really no ones business what I do
with my own body.
Quote:
so, to say
abortion is right, is to say that it is
right to kill an innocent person in order
to remove a consequence that another
person has rightfully
incurred.
so, you think there
should be punishment for having sex?
Are pregnancy, child birth, and
children that
punishment?
my post, that you have responded to here,
was written to respond to the argument
that abortion is right whether the unborn
is a person or not. There is no
point in debating whether or not the
unborn is a person, unless it is
determined that the fact of it's
personhood is consequential to the debate.
Since the unborn's personhood has
been deemed irrelevant, my argument can be
based upon the assumption that the unborn
is a person.
Naturally, since this argument assumes
that the unborn is a person, the child is
assumed to be present at conception.
The child's presence is not a
punishment for having sex, it is a natural
consequence of having sex.
If you choose to go sky diving, a
potential consequence would be the loss of
your life. If you choose to be
sexually active, a potential consequence
would be the conception of a new person.
In either case, if you were to
argue that it is a punishment, you would
be forced to acknowledge the fact that
you've inflicted this punishment upon
yourself.
So, if we are to assume that the unborn is
a person, then having an abortion would be
removing a natural consequence that a
woman has rightfully incurred by killing
another person. Clearly, this is not
right.
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1489 Location: ,
Thanks: 75
Thanked:5
Posted: 11-17-04 07:45am
There are other possible consequences of
having sex -- like catching syphilis or
chlamydia. You are suggesting that if you
catch a std, then you shouldn't be allowed
any treatment, since this is a
consequence. Or if you smoke, knowing
that you could get lung cancer, you
shouldn't be allowed treatment.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-17-04 08:23am
Medical treatment dosnt kill another human
being in these situations.
Thats what this whole thing is about
stopping women taking the life of another
human being!
Not getting treatment in life threatening
situations.
Even when the pregnancy will result in the
mothers death we agree the mother can
abort, thus even we say women have more
rights than the baby, but not so many as
they can kill willy nilly for any reason
at any time. Only one reason the risk of
death of the mother, being at a very high
risk possiblity.
You know - we will win this war - becuase
we are for justice for all
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-17-04 11:12am
izzy
wrote:
medical treatment dosnt kill
another human being in these situations.
Thats what this whole thing is about
stopping women taking the life of another
human being!
Not getting treatment in life threatening
situations.
Even when the pregnancy will result in the
mothers death we agree the mother can
abort, thus even we say women have more
rights than the baby, but not so many as
they can kill willy nilly for any reason
at any time. Only one reason the risk of
death of the mother, being at a very high
risk possiblity.
You know - we will win this war - becuase
we are for justice for all
why are you for abortion in case the
mother may die? What makes that fetus
any less just because it's mother will die
if she gives birth to it?
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Posted: 11-17-04 19:26pm
poopoopoo
wrote:
there are other possible
consequences of having sex -- like
catching syphilis or chlamydia. You
are suggesting that if you catch a std,
then you shouldn't be allowed any
treatment, since this is a consequence.
Or if you smoke, knowing that you
could get lung cancer, you shouldn't be
allowed
treatment.
in my last post, I was making a
distinction between punishment and natural
consequence. I was not suggesting that
all natural consequences are irreversible.
In some situations, there is a remedy
that can ethically be employed - in
other's there is not.
All of the treatments that you have
compared to abortion do not involve the
taking of an innocent person's life.
If treating std's required the killing a
person, I would surely think that these
treatments should not be available.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 11-18-04 22:55pm
izzy
wrote:
but I have to have the right
to abort them, its not fair.. I must be
able to abort them if I am to have full
autonomy of my body, I have every right to
sit where I want and decide what goes into
my body - these "smokers" are forcing
their habbit on
me.
are you purposefully
dense? You can not be forced to endure
the smoke against your will. You have
the right to take steps to preserve the
autonomy of your body against the unwanted
smoke as it is not a person.
Your stupid remark about the smokers, who
are not using their body is merely showing
how ill-thought-through your analogy is,
as is typical for anti-choice analogies.
Quote:
Quote:
what's it's so
hard to grasp that all born people have
the right to life (considering they
haven't comitted a heinous
crime)?
what is so hard grasp.. All non smokers
have the right to life by terminating
smokers we are not only protecting our
right to full autonomy but also our right
to life!
you have yet to show that
the smokers are directly using your body,
or that you have no other method of
removing the smoke from your body than by
killing the smokers.
Your "proof" by vigorous assertion is
merely a sophistic exercize without
relevance to reality. It is nothing but
the typical anti-choice revisionist
linguistics.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 11-18-04 23:00pm
prolife
wrote:
the principle is this: if
you take a risk, you must take
responsibility for it. This means
you must be willing to accept the
potential
consequences.
and take charge of your
own situation regarding that consequense
yes. And that is exactly what the woman
does by obtaining a legal, medical
procedure that terminates the pregnancy.
Quote:
if a woman
chooses to be sexually active, the
potential consequence is that she may
become
pregnant.
which may lead to the
further consequense of her obtaining an
abortion. How is the pregnancy a
consequense and the abortion is not? Or
is this just the typocal dishonest
anti-choice revisionist lingusitics of
smoke and mirrors?
Quote:
in having an
abortion, she would be removing this
consequence, by killing another
person.
the fetus is not a
person, your falsehood none withstanding.
And by taking charge of her situation and
deciding whether to have an abortion or
not, she is indeed facing the consequenses
of her pregnancy.
Quote:
so, to say
abortion is right, is to say that it is
right to kill an innocent
person
nope, your claim is a
lie.
Quote:
in order to
remove a consequence that another person
has rightfully
incurred.
huh? The man has
rightfully incurred the pregnanncy in her?
What utter nonsense you are spewing.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 11-18-04 23:19pm
prolife
wrote:
my post, that you have
responded to here, was written to respond
to the argument that abortion is right
whether the unborn is a person or not.
There is no point in debating
whether or not the unborn is a person,
unless it is determined that the fact of
it's personhood is consequential to the
debate. Since the unborn's
personhood has been deemed irrelevant, my
argument can be based upon the assumption
that the unborn is a
person.
but given that no person,
pregnant or not, can be forced to give of
their bodily resources to keep anybody or
anything alive, the point of the embryos
status is completely irrelevant. Whether
the fetus is a person or not is no more
relevant than whether you are a person or
not if you are bleeding to death. You
would not be able to force me to give you
any of my blood, even if your life depends
on it. As such, certainly an embryo
doesn't have such a right either. So
until you show that I can be forced to
give you blood if you are bleeding to
death, you really don't have any
non-hypocritical argument for forcing the
woman to give of her bodily resources
against her will.
Quote:
naturally, since
this argument assumes that the unborn is a
person, the child is assumed to be present
at
conception.
"child" is a
developmental stage occuring after birth,
your dishonest revisionist linguistics
none withstanding.
Quote:
the child's
presence is not a punishment for having
sex, it is a natural consequence of having
sex.
there is no child until
after birth.
Quote:
if you choose to
go sky diving, a potential consequence
would be the loss of your
life.
or an injury. Does that
mean that this injury should not be
treated because it is the consequense of
your behavior? You are basically arguing
that we should not treat injuries, heart
attacks, lung cancer or any other medical
consequense of voluntary actions.
Quote:
if you choose to
be sexually active, a potential
consequence would be the conception of a
new person.
regardless of its
personhood status, its use of the woman's
body can be terminated if said use is
against her will, so your point is
irrelevant.
Quote:
in either case,
if you were to argue that it is a
punishment, you would be forced to
acknowledge the fact that you've inflicted
this punishment upon
yourself.
so if we refuse to treat
lung cancer in smokers, then that is a
punishment that they have inflicted on
themselves?
Quote:
so, if we are to
assume that the unborn is a
person,
that is your argument
that nobody have subscribed to because you
have failed to show anything but sophistry
and revisionist linguistics in support of
Quote:
then having an
abortion would be removing a natural
consequence
that is the reality of
all medical treatment of any kind.
Medical treatment of any kind is to
counteract "natural consequenses," so what
is your point? That medical care should
be abolished?
Quote:
that a woman has
rightfully incurred by killing another
person. Clearly, this is not
right.
ah, lets shut down
medical schools and fire all doctors.
After all, you have just declared that
their services, in the "removing a natural
consequence" is not right.
While I applaud your desire to have
humanity to now rely solely on natural
selection, I doubt you get many takers to
your radical approach. You would have to
be rather fanatically pro-evolution-only
to endorse that radical concept of medical
care being wrong.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 11-18-04 23:21pm
prolife
wrote:
poopoopoo
wrote:
there are other possible
consequences of having sex -- like
catching syphilis or chlamydia.
You are suggesting that if you catch a
std, then you shouldn't be allowed any
treatment, since this is a consequence.
Or if you smoke, knowing that you
could get lung cancer, you shouldn't be
allowed
treatment.
in my last post, I was making a
distinction between punishment and natural
consequence. I was not suggesting that
all natural consequences are irreversible.
In some situations, there is a remedy
that can ethically be employed - in
other's there is not.
All of the treatments that you have
compared to abortion do not involve the
taking of an innocent person's
life.
neither does abortion.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 11-21-04 16:22pm
Well said steen!
Sincerely,
sandy
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-21-04 16:49pm
You are a blinded fool - blinded by your
own self importance and you believe
there(pro abortion) propergander!
Anyone reading this who wants to know
which side is telling the lies should duly
note this deliberate dehumanizing
rhetoric. The word person lead the pro
abortion movement to change the meaning of
"person" via the supreem court....To stop
you pro choice supporters (hee hee point
at the fools and laugh) from twisting and
turning prolife should have used human
being instead.
What will you come back with hmmm?
its not indipendednt of the mother -
therefore not an individual - therefore
not a human being - its not born its not a
human being predictable propergander!
Its of human origin is distinct from
mother (and father) and therefore an
individual - its alive etc - it has all
the requirements that make it a human
being a.K.A person!
This party is just getting started......
Bring it on! Woooooo
"jim bob go get papa's gun we got
oursleves a bit of a rat infestation
problem"
|
PattyV
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 1103 Location: Chicago area
Posted: 11-21-04 17:34pm
The word is "propaganda"!Please!Patty
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 11-21-04 23:53pm
Izzy, are you able to take posts and
points serious and actually deal with the
arguments made, or are you only able to
regurgitate unrelated revisionist
linguistics yammering?
