History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
If I am driving, and get hit by another driver, should I not be able to sue, since I knew the risk?
Why so many bleeding-hearts?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
If I am driving, and get hit by another driver, should I not be able to sue, since I knew the risk?
GhostWriter16
Deity
The driver still bears responsibility for his own actions. The fetus would never have existed were it not for you.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
That's not how it works, and furthermore it is unfair to enforce it against her and her alone. The existence of rape I think demonstrates this point, as if it were only her fault, then we should expect only her to be capable of bringing it upon herself. This is, in fact, not the case: just as a man can be solely responsible for bringing about the pregnancy, in cases of consensual respect he is equally as responsible as the woman. So to say that she must take on the pregnancy as a consequence of her choice is a specious assertion when this consequence is not even equally distributed among those responsible!
Consenting to risk is not consenting to consequences, not quite. If you agree that you could be shot at any time, that is to say you accept that that risk exists whenever you go outside, then it does not follow that you accept that consequence. You may attempt to mitigate the risk of being shot - wear kevlar, only travel in safe locations - but by that same token, you may mitigate the risk of getting pregnant when having sex - use condoms, birth control. Either way, you cannot reasonably argue that you must accept the consequence of the pregnancy because you had sex.
This is furthermore the case when this consequence is only forced on fifty percent of those who "accepted the risk."
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,421
Stop calling a person a fetus. Do not yield vocabulary to the evil left for it is only on the battlefield of limp wristed debate that the cowardly whiners dare to engage. Rout them in the morning time, rout them in the evening. Fight with growing confidence and growing strength. We shall defend the truth, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight against the long odds but not without hope, for we stand upon the foundation of the Almighty and they upon the stinkhole, the diddy, and the grave.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
MC Posts ... it's super ineffective, another person is aborted.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
So I don't consent to all collateral actions?
If GW's hand could get pregnant, he would be pro choice.
Moderator Action: warned for trolling - ori.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: warned for trolling - ori.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
holy king
Deity
GhostWriter16
Deity
It is unfair.
I actually agree.
Unfortunately, it is even more unfair to kill the unborn in order to free her from this responsibility.
Once the child is born, the woman can give him/her up for adoption. She does not have to take care of it anymore. If the father wants the child, and the mother does not, the father can raise that child. Men still have to pay child support.
I'm not saying men should not bear responsibility. Unfortunately, reality does not allow shared responsibility during pregnancy. It is unacceptable to commit murder to rectify this injustice.
The person shooting you is guilty of a crime, namely, shooting you.
The fetus, on the other hand, is not guilty of any crime, as it does not at this point possess any will. It CANNOT leave.
For the record, if it could, if, for instance, the embryo could be transported to an artificial womb without suffering significant side effects, I would absolutely grant the woman this choice. I don't want her to have to carry the child just for lolz. I simply do not want (Very small) people to be murdered.'
The man had no risk to accept. Which is an accident of biology, not something I am claiming is fair. But life isn't fair. Being murdered is a greater offense of your bodily soveregnty than to lose it for nine months. Since there is no criminal here, the right to life wins.
A fetus is a person, at a certain stage of development. I do not see that terminology as any different than using these respective stages of development, embryo, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult, elderly, exc.
I'd rather fight over actual substantive issues than terminology, honestly.
That's not my reasoning. Like, at all. How many times do I have to answer this objection before the pro-choice crowd gives me actual objections rather than foolish, lying ones?
It is true that some pro-lifers want to punish women for having sex. They hold the right position (That abortion should be illegal) for the wrong reasons (The right reason is that a fetus is a human life, any other reason is wrong). These people do indeed exist. I can use their votes to protect human life without holding the slightest of respect for their position.
GhostWriter16
Deity
There are lots of kinds of contraception, and I have no problem with any kind that does not cause an abortion, so that's a completely slanderous estimation of my position.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Unlike telling people they're promoting mass-murder.
Which is perfectly acceptable.
Which is perfectly acceptable.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I'm sure not deliberately, but I believe people on the pro-choice side (Unintentionally) are.
Sorry, but I'm not softening my position for you.
Sorry, but I'm not softening my position for you.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No, you like those terms too much. But others do have to soften their position for you right? Because I know you don't hate women, but you are promoting misogyny. Not intentionally, but you are. Right?
See, and that's the difference between you and I. You don't care whether your words misrepresents another person's position. In fact you embrace it because it gives you an angle to attack it. I do care about the position I am arguing against. If I need to throw misogyny in the mix to make an argument I start doubting my position. While you seem to think it strengthens it.
And since in these sort of debates no one is promoting mass-murder, and no one hates women, I think I'll stick to my more honest way of debating. I know the topic is important enough to grant my opponent in an argument that much respect.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
You are aware that murder has a very specific definition. Murder is the unlawfulling killing of a human person. Is a fetus human? Yes. It is a person? Well, that is the issue. You know, the useful issue to discuss as opposed to talking about mass-murder or whether the mother 'consented'.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I agree, but the people I'm arguing with don't really care if a fetus posseesses personhood...
I consider such a line of argumentation both much more useful, and much more difficult to determine.
To me, distinct human DNA seals the deal. Sentience is not relevant unless you think its OK to kill people who are sleeping, survivability outside the womb is always changing and so biologically irrelevant.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Complete and utter bollocks.
So, GW, you use a faucet as a murder weapon?
