The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[ChikN10der]

If a woman is pregnant and you take away her right to an abortion, you are indeed forcing her to have that child.

By taking away my right to murder you, I'm forced to live in a world that includes you.
Why are you forcing yourself on me?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

If there are no legal ways for abortion, then a woman who chose to become pregnant forces herself to have that child.

I ask again: why lay responsibility at other's feet? You go back to the issue now, but you also argued for it in the case if nature. You said nature is forcing you to walk. Why lay responsibility of what you do at other's feet?

If a woman is raped, then she sure didn't choose it.

By taking away my right to murder you, I'm forced to live in a world that includes you.
Why are you forcing yourself on me?

Lol you're still mad that I don't like Dear Leader, eh?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Slavery involved sentient beings.

Slaves were regarded as subhuman, especially for the purposes of justifying the institution.

If a woman is raped

You're not arguing abortion specifically in the case of rape. You're arguing for abortion in general, and you use rape as a way to exploit your interlocutors' innate sympathies for rape victims, as well as make a non-point against an argument that's all but agnostic to the circumstances of the conception due to its position being concerned with the life status of the fetus.

 

[Zelmek]

I like to go off the trail of thought that as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, the entity is no longer to be identified as part of the woman's body but rather an inhabitant within it and as a human entity, should be given the same rights as a child outside the womb. So we have an issue of two people having rights but one of them is inside the other. Location only determines where something is, not what it is. To break the stalemate between the infant's rights and the bodily autonomy of the mother, I suggest using the innocence factor.
Even in the event of a rape case, the woman will always have had more influence on the situation than the infant. Thus, the infant becomes ever so slightly more valuable than the mother and thus its right to live supercedes her right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Lemmingwise]

If a woman is raped, then she sure didn't choose it.


Lol you're still mad that I don't like Dear Leader, eh?

Why not try to answer the question without resorting to special pleading or changing the subject?

Why lay responsibility at other's feet?

We used nature and walking as a comparison. Then you reverted back to the original topic. Now you're giving specific special case area of the original topic. Why not get the basics hammered out? What do you have to lose?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Why not try to answer the question without resorting to special pleading or changing the subject?

Why lay responsibility at other's feet?

We used nature and walking as a comparison. Then you reverted back to the original topic. Now you're giving specific special case area of the original topic. Why not get the basics hammered out? What do you have to lose?

In either case, humans can either travel on land or water. We cannot travel by air because nature took away our choice. Taking away a choice is indeed forcing someone to do something.

 

[Lemmingwise]

In either case, humans can either travel on land or water. We cannot travel by air because nature took away our choice. Taking away a choice is indeed forcing someone to do something.

Yes, that's what you said before. Again you have not given any reasoning why thst is the case. You ignore the comparison to sophie's third possible choice. You seem to say that the man with the two trolley problem must act and not only that, but that he is forced externally into acting.

I'm asking you why. Why lay that responsibility at other's feet? What is the argumentation for it? The reasoning?

Or is it just your assumption, your bias, your irrationally chosen position? Either you have reason for it, or it is presumed. You've reiterated the position three or four times now, but still have not said why.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Yes, that's what you said before. Again you have not given any reasoning why thst is the case. You ignore the comparison to sophie's third possible choice. You seem to say that the man with the two trolley problem must act and not only that, but that he is forced externally into acting.

I'm asking you why. Why lay that responsibility at other's feet? What is the argumentation for it? The reasoning?

Or is it just your assumption, your bias, your irrationally chosen position? Either you have reason for it, or it is presumed. You've reiterated the position three or four times now, but still have not said why.

What other choice is there? Crawling is still traveling on land. We can't physically teleport, so we are stuck being forced.

But that's getting off-topic, here.

 

[Lemmingwise]

What other choice is there?

I've already answered that question.

Well thanks for making clear that you have no reasoning why you lay the responsibility at another's feet.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I've already answered that question.

Well thanks for making clear that you have no reasoning why you lay the responsibility at another's feet.

Except the choices that you laid out still required travel over land.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Except the choices that you laid out still required travel over land.

What do you think I meant was the third choice that Sophie had? Or the two trolley problem? I thought it was clear, but I guess I'll have to spell it out.

There's also inaction.

At this point I've answered it three times.
Still no answer from you.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

What do you think I meant was the third choice that Sophie had? Or the two trolley problem? I thought it was clear, but I guess I'll have to spell it out.

There's also inaction.

At this point I've answered it three times.
Still no answer from you.

No, if you want to move, you are either moving over land or water. You seem to be autistic, but this is really autistic

 

[Lemmingwise]

No, if you want to move, you are either moving over land or water. You seem to be autistic, but this is really autistic

If you can't pound on the argument, pound on the person. If you can't pound on the person, pound on the table.

You seem to be getting angry because you are unable to explain why you're laying responsibility at another's feet.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

If you can't pound on the argument, pound on the person. If you can't pound on the person, pound on the table.

You seem to be getting angry because you are unable to explain why you're laying responsibility at another's feet.

No, you seem to be unable to grasp that taking away choices is indeed forcing someone to do something. Nature takes away your ability to fly, you have two choices to move: go over land or over water. There's no other choice, unless you know of any. Crawling is still going over land.

I don't get why you are choosing this hill to die on. The only explanation can be severe autism.

 

[Lemmingwise]

No, you seem to be unable to grasp that taking away choices is indeed forcing someone to do something. Nature takes away your ability to fly, you have two choices to move: go over land or over water. There's no other choice, unless you know of any. Crawling is still going over land.

I don't get why you are choosing this hill to die on. The only explanation can be severe autism.

You are just asserting, not giving any reasoning. Ignoring my arguments and repeating your position is futile.

I can't reason you out if a position you didn't reason yourself into.

Your entire argument rests on "if I want to move, you're forcing me to move that way".

First, that "if" is chosen by you, since you choose what what goals you persue. Second, even if you have chosen a goal to persue, you choose what methods you use to persue it and if you even want to persue it with the methods available.

That's also what @ChikN10der meant with the murder comment. He also starts with an "if I want x" and was using an absurd statement to make it clear to you. It either went over your head or you willfully misinterpreted it.

You have given no rebuttal to the possibility of inaction in this hypothetical. You have not provided any argument why those that guard away options are morally responsible for the person taking choices.

If you had a bridge to walk over instead of land, but you are refused passage, is that bridge owner now responsible for how or where you move? If there are three bridges are the bridge owners all responsible, with no responsibility for you? You have again given no reason why the responsibility for actions is transferred.

And because you know you are looking bad for not being able to explain, you start calling me autistic. Unless you will provide reasoning beyond repeating your position, I think we are done here. You have no reasoning.

 

[ChikN10der]

If a woman is raped, then she sure didn't choose it.


Lol you're still mad that I don't like Dear Leader, eh?

I don't like you raping me by forcing me to live in a world where you exist. The ban on murder has forced this on me.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

You are just asserting, not giving any reasoning. Ignoring my arguments and repeating your position is futile.

I can't reason you out if a position you didn't reason yourself into.

Your entire argument rests on "if I want to move, you're forcing me to move that way".

First, that "if" is chosen by you, since you choose what what goals you persue. Second, even if you have chosen a goal to persue, you choose what methods you use to persue it and if you even want to persue it with the methods available.

That's also what @ChikN10der meant with the murder comment. He also starts with an "if I want x" and was using an absurd statement to make it clear to you. It either went over your head or you willfully misinterpreted it.

You have given no rebuttal to the possibility of inaction in this hypothetical. You have not provided any argument why those that guard away options are morally responsible for the person taking choices.

If you had a bridge to walk over instead of land, but you are refused passage, is that bridge owner now responsible for how or where you move? If there are three bridges are the bridge owners all responsible, with no responsibility for you? You have again given no reason why the responsibility for actions is transferred.

And because you know you are looking bad for not being able to explain, you start calling me autistic. Unless you will provide reasoning beyond repeating your position, I think we are done here. You have no reasoning.

Your reasoning makes no sense. If you are taking away someone's choices, then you are forcing them to do something. Your sperging off topic here is definitely autistic. Back on topic here, if a woman is pregnant and you are taking away her ability to choose to have an abortion, then yes, you are forcing her to have a child. This is not a difficult concept. She either can abort the child or bare the child. By removing her ability to have an abortion, you are forcing her to have the child. It's really not a hard concept. I know you can get this

 

[Lemmingwise]

Just restates without reasoning. What a madlad

 

[ChikN10der]

Just restates without reasoning. What a madlad

He's dumb, but the kid's got chutzpah. After you and I have long gotten tired of repeating the same points, he'll be here, waiting, to repeat the same illogical emotional garbage ad infinitum.

 

[Eris!]

If you can't come up with one and tell me one, then you are admitting I am correct

It's perfectly possible to have no options and not be forced by anyone. There is no magic law of the universe that says you must have good options left over. What you are left with has no relationship to what is taken from you or what is done to you. I don't care what you are left with, it's none of my business and is not relevant.

Killing you and leaving you with no options but to die are not the same thing. The man who doesn't give you water in the desert did not cause your death, heatstroke did. Capitalism does not kill millions every year through starvation, they just die of starvation in absence of anyone feeding them. It is not logically possible to cause something or force something by doing nothing.

Taking away choices is indeed forcing someone to do something.

Just saying it over and over again won't make us take it seriously.
Here's a quick rundown: If you say no, and a human being imposes consequences on you for saying no, you are being forced to do the thing. In literally any other case you are not being forced to do anything. You can't say no to me about your pregnancy, because I'm not doing your pregnancy to you. No one is doing anything to you. No one is imposing anything on you. Your pregnancy is happening on its own, without my involvement. Inaction is not action.

I am forcing women not to have abortions. I am not forcing them to be pregnant. Those are very, very different actions. The latter is rape. Did I rape them? No? Then I did not force them to bear a child.

If a woman is pregnant and you take away her right to an abortion, you are indeed forcing her to have that child.

Not a single person in this thread agrees and you have made zero arguments to try to change anyone's mind.

then a woman who chose to become pregnant forces herself to have that child.

Exactly. She gets herself pregnant. She forced herself to have a baby. I have nothing to do with it.

Lol you're still mad that I don't like Dear Leader, eh?

He made a good argument that shows why your position is silly and instead of responding to it you just offer detached irony.

If a woman is raped, then she sure didn't choose it.

If a woman is raped than her rapist forced her to have a baby, not me.
But in the case of 99% of abortions, the woman wasn't raped.

No, you seem to be unable to grasp that taking away choices is indeed forcing someone to do something.

It's not that we're "unable to grasp" it. It's that we disagree, and you haven't argued for it.

I don't get why you are choosing this hill to die on. The only explanation can be severe autism.

We aren't dying on it, you are, and you're dying without even bothering to put up a fight.

Unless you will provide reasoning beyond repeating your position

He doesn't have any.

f you are taking away someone's choices, then you are forcing them to do something.

How many times are you going to say the exact same thing and expect to hear something other than a chorus of "No?"

Back on topic here, if a woman is pregnant and you are taking away her ability to choose to have an abortion, then yes, you are forcing her to have a child.

No, you are not.

This is not a difficult concept.

It's an incorrect concept.

She either can abort the child or bare the child.

She can bare [sic] the child.

By removing her ability to have an abortion, you are forcing her to have the child

Incorrect. I am not forcing her to do anything.

I don't like you raping me by forcing me to live in a world where you exist. The ban on murder has forced this on me.

I think he genuinely doesn't understand what you're getting at.

I like to go off the trail of thought that as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, the entity is no longer to be identified as part of the woman's body but rather an inhabitant within it and as a human entity, should be given the same rights as a child outside the womb. So we have an issue of two people having rights but one of them is inside the other. Location only determines where something is, not what it is. To break the stalemate between the infant's rights and the bodily autonomy of the mother, I suggest using the innocence factor.

There is no conflict. The mother has no right to the "bodily autonomy" of abandoning her child. Her child has implicit rights to her womb. Children are entitled to their parents. It's not a stranger who has taken up residence, it is her child, who she created. She has fundamental responsibilities toward that child which she does not have the option of giving up. She has no right to abandon her child. She has no moral choice but to raise it. She is obligated not just to carry it for 9 months, and not just for 18 years, but for the rest of her life. The two of them have inextricably linked relationship which can never be negated by either of them, and which imposes responsibilities on them both.