Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

Nedsk

Well-known member
A platitude that can apply to either side.

Not to delivering a baby, it's not.

Want proof? Ask a woman seeking an abortion whether or not she wants to give birth.
I don't think so. I suggest your argument is one sided. That's unjust

Back to emotion.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Doesn't matter, to me, how it got there.
Of course it matters how it got there! When the woman actively DID something to make it get there---of course it matters!
It shouldn't have the right to be there without the pregnant woman's consent.
Agreed---and if you want to argue that abortion is justifiable in cases of rape and incest, go right ahead.

I am talking about abortion on demand
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I don't think so. I suggest your argument is one sided. That's unjust

Back to emotion.
Of course it's based on emotion - all moral arguments are, ultimately.

I feel it more wrong to force a woman to carry to term than I do to allow her to abort. That is the assumption from which my argument proceeds.
Yours proceeds from the opposite feeling, but it's still a feeling.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
So is the argument against abortion - it takes the unborn's side at the expense of the pregnant woman's.
And rightly so. The woman would have two choices when the unborn child has zero. The unborn child is being punished for something it had no part in creating. That's unjust.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
Of course it's based on emotion - all moral arguments are, ultimately.

I feel it more wrong to force a woman to carry to term than I do to allow her to abort. That is the assumption from which my argument proceeds.
Yours proceeds from the opposite feeling, but it's still a feeling.
No not really.

You mean you think it is. Swapping out a word isn't compelling.

What feeling is my argument proceeding from?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
No not really.

You mean you think it is. Swapping out a word isn't compelling.

What feeling is my argument proceeding from?
That the rights of the unborn should trump those of the woman carrying her.

There is no way to establish this objectively; it must be assumed.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No, I don't.
You talked about the need to "treat" the pregnancy. One "treats" diseases, sir. That language is used when referencing diseases and medical conditions. Words mean things, sir.
I point out that there are pregnant women that see their pregnancies that way.
So? What do mental delusions have to do with it? Treat the mental disorder, not the pregnancy.
Remember - "women should be able to have abortions" is not the same as "women should have abortions."
The effect, sir, is the same. No matter how politely the lawyers at Eightcrakers, Eightcrakers and Third Name want to phrase it, an unborn child is slaughtered when a woman has an abortion.
If they are inside your body, where abortion is legal, you do have that right.
Yes--that is the whole problem. This is what we are debating.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Not to me, as I just said.

Not nceessarily with the intent for it to get there.

"You know that sex can lead to pregnancy, right?"
"Yes."
"Do you WANT to be pregnant?"
"No."

There's your difference.
The Elephant is a funny bird
It flits from wave to bough
It builds its nest in a rhubarb tree
and whistles like a cow
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Not to me, as I just said.
Well, sir, here is the thing, whether it matters to you or not is not relevant. There are CONSEQUENCES to choices and behaviors. That is a fact. It does not matter whether you care. It just IS. That is how realty works.
Not necessarily with the intent for it to get there.
Intent is in the action, sir. You cannot separate out intent from action.
"You know that sex can lead to pregnancy, right?"
"Yes."
"Do you WANT to be pregnant?"
"No."

There's your difference.
Fine--let the woman do any one of a number of things to prevent a pregnancy:

1) Birth control

2) Condom

3) Surgery

4) Do not have sex

What is so difficult about this, sir?
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
That the rights of the unborn should trump those of the woman carrying her.

There is no way to establish this objectively; it must be assumed.
Yes they should. She already had a choice the child has had none. The child will be made to pay a price for something it didnt do. That's unjust in anyone's book or should be but shockingly it's isn't.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
There are CONSEQUENCES to choices and behaviors.
Abortion is one possible consequence of pregnancy.
Intent is in the action, sir. You cannot separate out intent from action.
If I climb a rock wall, but fall and break my leg, did I intend to break my leg?
Fine--let the woman do any one of a number of things to prevent a pregnancy:

1) Birth control

2) Condom

3) Surgery

4) Do not have sex

What is so difficult about this, sir?
I agree - all of those things are preferable to an unwanted pregnancy.

But none of them does anything about an unwanted pregnancy.
 
Top