The Glade 4.0

You didn't cripple the zygote/fetus. Nature did that - the parts that made up the zygote were incapable of long term survival long before conception. Conception didn't change anything.

It has a right to life outside the womb when and only when it can survive outside the womb.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm not going to repeat myself. So let me just ask this:

Should it be illegal to kill your children?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

1) Think of the Children is not a fallacy, nor is it what I'm saying at all. You're just strawmanning and using predjudicial language.
2) Your analogy of getting your car smashed up isn't in any way applicable to pregnancy.
3) You are begging the question by asserting that it isn't a child or your own until it's born and you take guardianship of it. That's precisely the issue at hand. You can't simply assert your way out of it.
4) The same applies to your assertion that abortion is a way of dealing with the responsibility. I agree with that, if we're talking about a non-viable fetus, in terms of legal responsibility, but again, you are begging the question. You cannot say, in response to the assertion that you have a responsibility for a child once you become pregnant with it that abortion is a means of dealing with that responsibility because that is precisely the issue at hand. You have to explain why it is a means of dealing with it, especially since the concept of "responsibility for a child" means looking after its well -being, not eliminating it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes.

Fetuses are not yet your children.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm not talking about fetuses. Suppose they're 5-year-olds.

Edit: actually, based on what you've said so far, I should revise this slightly.

Should it be illegal to starve a 4-year-old to death?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

You performed an action that requires an individual to survive off of assistance. You're stuck.



Says you. But there's no logical basis to this at all.

2 year old children can't survive outside the womb on their own. They must live off of someone else. So unless you're advocating being able to dump a child at any time, then there's no difference in womb or out of womb.

And that's where your argument breaks down. You have no scientific basis for this.

No, I really don't. Getting pregnant is a known possible consequence of sex. You need to explain why you should not experience the consequences of that act. Explain why sex, out of all human activity, should get special exemption in terms of its consequences, and why, just because we have modern technology, people are suddenly entitled to that exemption. Otherwise this is just special pleading on your part.



This is just your sense of entitlement to consequnce-free sex talking. It doesn't matter what she was having it for, what matters is the biological purpose of sex - which, by the way, is not anything I determined. You can't escape other responsibilities in life by claiming you didn't want them, what's so special about this one?



False. It is not a violation of her body at all; she is responsible for her condition in the first place unless it was a case of rape.



Evidently you're no more interested in actually responding to what I'm saying than you are to Stathol, and all you really want to do is rant, scream, and generally vent your spleen with as much loaded language as you can think to include.

What I'm saying is that he pointed out an argument that made no theological or religious reference, and your objection is "but that's sexual slavery!"

So **** what? That doesn't make it any less secular.



Your inability to comprehend something fairly easily understood is not my problem, nor Stathol's

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually, no. I'm lampshading your prejudicial language. You asserted that they were your children. If you wish to use such emotionally charged rhetoric, prove it.



Yes, it really is. Pregnancy is just an easily curable medical condition. There are several ways of dealing with it if you don't want to let it run its course.



Actually I can. The burden of proof lies upon someone else to prove otherwise. There's no clear line of responsibility.




Again I don't, but I will.

A woman has no obligation to look after the well being of a total stranger she has not invited into her home, or her womb. As she has not accepted or agreed to any responsibility nor adopted the child as her own. Evicting the fetus from the womb does not violate its "right to life" as such a right does not grant one the right to live at another's expense. In many cases, abortion is the MOST responsible action. It's far kinder and more humane not to bring a new unwanted child into the world than the alternative.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You have no obligation to feed a 4 year old child that shows up at your door uninvited. Although it'd be nice to call the cops so they can look after it.

You do have an obligation to feed a four year old that you agreed to look after when you took legal guardianship of the child. (Whether by keeping it at birth, or by adoption).

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Because there's a simple way out of it. The mere fact that you got pregnant having sex does not prove that you cannot end the pregnancy. Just because you have an infection doesn't mean you can't end it with antibiotics. A fetus is just as valuable or worthy as that bacterial infection. It has absolutely no inherent value nor does it place any obligation on those that conceived it, unless they accept that obligation.



Abortion is accepting and dealing with the responsibility.



Yes, she is responsible for her condition. However, if you deny her the easily available cure to that condition, then YOU are responsible for her condition.



No, it doesn't, but it does makes it illogical and flawed. The only logical reasons for banning abortion are theocratic. If you can admit "Because god said so" in government, and you think your god said so, then you've got a reason to ban abortion. If you're going to secularize government, there is no logical path to banning it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I suspect this will vary depending on where you live, but did you actually sign a document assenting to that legal guardianship?

Indeed, if you give birth somewhere other than a hospital, there may not even a birth certificate. Parental obligations can and are assigned to you whether you agree to them or not. Consider one of several cases of teenage mothers who killed their infants immediately after giving birth in a bathroom somewhere. Certainly they never entered into any legal agreement to keep or care for the baby. Should they not be charged with murder?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Once we define the moral position can we examine how to enact it. The latter without the former is counter-productive.

I don't care what you find "evil" Taly. I don't care that your irrationality is likely born from an adolescent rebelling against your household. I care only that you're being irrational.

Fixed the quotes ... I think. --Stathol

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The intent here is to use a word with negative connotations to instill a negative feeling in the target which makes it easier to dehumanize. Since this revolves around a biological subject I find biological fact to be highly relevant.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I believe we had to sign a lot of documents that may or may not have had that exact purpose, at the very least could make an excellent legal argument for implicit guardianship.

Certainly it varies from place to place, but one can always legally abdicate that responsibility.



Yes, they should. And actually, I believe old-style vacuum abortions after viability should be treated the same way. Induced labor, however, should always be allowed. It's up to the fetus whether or not it can survive the outside world (with whatever medical help is available). The mother should not be forced to shelter it from such.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

By medical definition, a fetus is actually a parasite, as the stipulation that it be a different type of organism is unstated.


http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... lekey=4769

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

A fetus feeds off of its host while providing nothing of benefit until expelled, and in some cases can cause death. Sounds like a parasite to me.

Actually by the "logic" of can not survive outside the womb, then I have a ton of mentally challenged, and with many other disability children, adults, and seniors that need putting down. After all they can not survive. they are thwarting evolution!

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Well if we look long term that fetus used to be a child that helped when you become an older invalid.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Ridiculous but potentially useful hypothetical for you, Taly:

Imagine one of the potential results of having sex was that some random person in the world would suddenly become magically/psychically "linked" to you in some way, and that link would cause you to have symptoms similar to pregnancy. The link will wear off naturally after about 9 months, but it's possible for the person who created it (by having sex) to break the connection early. Doing so, however, will kill the random person on the other end. Should you be allowed to break that link anyway, or should you be obligated to wait the 9 months, since you're the one who created the link - without the other person's knowledge or consent - in the first place?

Easily answered, RD: It's not my problem that they can't survive breaking the link. They are at my mercy, it's my decision. I may choose not to sever it (just as I personally find abortion distasteful and would never have one), but it is my choice, nobody else's.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Ok; so in those cases, they should be charged with murder -- but why? They never entered into any parental agreement. They didn't actively deprive it of its life. They just abandoned it to fend for itself, and it failed. So rationally, why should they be charged with anything?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Ok, so you can sever the link if you choose, but should you be charged with a crime for the resulting death? After all, you caused the link, and you caused the death.

If a woman can choose to sever the link on her own, can a man sever a financial link then T?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I smell a giant elephant in the room and it's bothering me to no end. Talya, with all sympathy and my own baggage aside, have you had an abortion?

_________________