quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Couldn't you say that newborns, the severely mentally and physically retarded and those in a comatose or severely injured/diseased state are also "dependent?" Does that make those people not human? Can a parent of a severly disabled child simply abandon or kill that child because s/he is infrining on thier rights to privacy or personal freedom?

No parent is ever forced to raise a newborn or severely disabled child, nor is anyone enslaved to fulfill the needs of the mentally or physically retarded, comatose, or severely injured/diseased. Although an individual can be required to pursue means of seperating themselves from such a situation which endanger the dependant as little as possible, in none of the aforementioned situations can a person's right to privacy or personal freedom be usurped by a right to life.

In the case of a fetus, there is no other way to preserve the rights of the mother than removing it.

quote:

Also, except in the case of rape (one of the few cases I do support abortion, although see below), the woman knows full well the possible consequences of her actions. By willingly submitting to sex, she (in my opinion) gives up these rights to "privacy and personal soverignty" that you are arguing for. Biologically speaking, the sole purpose of sex is reproduction. If the woman can somehow prove that she did not realize sex could lead to pregnancy, then maybe I can see a motive for abortion. However, I find it very unlikely that even an incredibly small proportion of women having sex don't realize that it may lead to pregnancy.

That is a red herring and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Yes, sexual intercourse can potentially lead to pregnancy, but it simply does not follow, that to engage in it indicates an abdication of any of one's rights. That is a specious point of view, akin to suggesting that the right to life is abdicated the moment one chooses to engage in an activity that poses a potential risk to one's life.

Furthermore, you state that it is merely "your opinion" that a woman's choice to have sex somehow nullifies her right to privacy. What if people don't happen to share that particular opinion of yours? Should they, too, be prohibited from having an abortion on the basis of what you acknowledge to be nothing more than your personal opinion?

Your egocentric and philosophically vacuous position on this issue makes me shudder, and I wouldn't show off your lack of proper consideration any further by suggesting that anyone other than yourself ought to refrain from having an abortion on the basis of your own very personal and rather dubiously formed "opinion."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Lastly, I note on rape. Yes, I do support the right to an abortion in these cases. However, only a small percentage of rape victims become pregnant, and their numbers are insignificant when looked at in context with the number of abortions performed annually.

Also, if you were raped, why not give the baby for adoption?

___________________
Vernato

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No parent is ever forced to raise a newborn or severely disabled child, nor is anyone enslaved to fulfill the needs of the mentally or physically retarded, comatose, or severely injured/diseased. Although an individual can be required to pursue means of seperating themselves from such a situation which endanger the dependant as little as possible, in none of the aforementioned situations can a person's right to privacy or personal freedom be usurped by a right to life. In the case of a fetus, there is no other way to preserve the rights of the mother than removing it. That is a red herring and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Yes, sexual intercourse can potentially lead to pregnancy, but it simply does not follow, that to engage in it indicates an abdication of any of one's rights. That is a specious point of view, akin to suggesting that the right to life is abdicated the moment one chooses to engage in an activity that poses a potential risk to one's life. Furthermore, you state that it is merely "your opinion" that a woman's choice to have sex somehow nullifies her right to privacy. What if people don't happen to share that particular opinion of yours? Should they, too, be prohibited from having an abortion on the basis of what you acknowledge to be nothing more than your personal opinion? Your egocentric and philosophically vacuous position on this issue makes me shudder, and I wouldn't show off your lack of proper consideration any further by suggesting that anyone other than yourself ought to refrain from having an abortion on the basis of your own very personal and rather dubiously formed "opinion."

Seriously, chill the hell out. I stated that it was "my opinion," because it is exactly that. I've never once stated that I want to not allow people to have abortions. I've only stated my opinions on the matter the entire time. I'm not here to change policy, only to make my opinion known as to when and how I don't agree with an abortion being performed. If you really can't handle people sharing their opinions and backing them up with their rationale, then that is your issue to resolve.

How would you have reacted if instead of saying "my opinion" I said "this is the way it should be." Would that have made it better for you? How "egocentric and philosophically vacuous" is it for you to personally attack someone because they decide to share an opinion? I'm guessing by your response that you believe that what you're sharing is not an opinion, but some sort of moral or philosophical eternal truth. Exactly how "egocentric and philosophically vacuous" is that?

And I'm sorry, but I stick by my original statement. If someone willfully has sex, the idea that it may lead to pregnancy must be a known consequence. To deny that is absurd. And like any other action with a consequence, sometimes those consequences must be faced, to whatever the dislike of the individual.

Honestly, if you'd like to have a debate in a civilized manner by presenting points and counter-points, I have no problem. But because I preface my statements on this topic by saying that they are "my opinion" or "to me" in order to show my personal stance on an issue and somehow turning that into a personal attack that is as you put it a "red herring and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand," turns this into some sort of ridiculous shouting match.

No thanks.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Jun-03-2006 at 04:08

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Honestly, if you'd like to have a debate in a civilized manner by presenting points and counter-points, I have no problem. But because I preface my statements on this topic by saying that they are "my opinion" or "to me" in order to show my personal stance on an issue and somehow turning that into a personal attack that is as you put it a "red herring and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand," turns this into some sort of ridiculous shouting match. No thanks.

but his first three paragraphs did give you counter-points

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Seriously, chill the hell out. I stated that it was "my opinion," because it is exactly that. I've never once stated that I want to not allow people to have abortions. I've only stated my opinions on the matter the entire time. I'm not here to change policy, only to make my opinion known as to when and how I don't agree with an abortion being performed.

Given that you wrote:

quote:

Lastly, I note on rape. Yes, I do support the right to an abortion in these cases.

which explicitly outlines abortions in the case of rape in terms of an exception, I can only assume that you do not support the right to an abortion in cases not meeting that criterion. If that is not the case, then you need to do a better job of defining your position unambiguously so that such a degree of interpretation is not necessary.

quote:

If you really can't handle people sharing their opinions and backing them up with their rationale, then that is your issue to resolve.

That's an ironic statement, given how well you handled me sharing my opinions about your "rationale."

quote:

How would you have reacted if instead of saying "my opinion" I said "this is the way it should be." Would that have made it better for you?

Why don't you settle on what you really mean first, and then worry about how I might react to it?

quote:

How "egocentric and philosophically vacuous" is it for you to personally attack someone because they decide to share an opinion? I'm guessing by your response that you believe that what you're sharing is not an opinion, but some sort of moral or philosophical eternal truth. Exactly how "egocentric and philosophically vacuous" is that?

I don't see anything egocentric or philosophically vacuous about anything I've written, and I suspect that you wouldn't either if you had bothered to actually educate yourself about these rights before you formed opinions about them. I also do not see that I have personally attacked you in any way, given that all my attacks were directed at your argument, opinions, and/or rationale.

It seems to me that you have no real argument or justification for your opinions, and that you have chosen them rather arbitrarily. Your decision to attempt to redirect the discussion onto some imaginary "personal attacks" rather than actually responding to any of the specific objections I raised to your statements can only be seen as evidence of the, as I said before, vacuous nature of your position, as can your apparent inability to settle upon a single well-defined position to begin with.

If I am terse or impatient with you or your argument it is only because you offer nothing but the same tired and apparently ignorant opinions I've heard a thousand other times. I see very little in the way of rationale and none at all that I haven't considered but ultimately dismissed as fallacious many times before.

quote:

And I'm sorry, but I stick by my original statement. If someone willfully has sex, the idea that it may lead to pregnancy must be a known consequence. To deny that is absurd. And like any other action with a consequence, sometimes those consequences must be faced, to whatever the dislike of the individual.

What's absurd is the idea that one possible outcome of a decision somehow eliminates a human being's inherent rights if that outcome should come to pass. I shouldn't need to go into the implications of such a ridiculous precedent.

quote:

Honestly, if you'd like to have a debate in a civilized manner by presenting points and counter-points, I have no problem. But because I preface my statements on this topic by saying that they are "my opinion" or "to me" in order to show my personal stance on an issue and somehow turning that into a personal attack that is as you put it a "red herring and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand," turns this into some sort of ridiculous shouting match. No thanks.

Please. I've given you every opportunity to justify your opinions even though it is in all probability a complete waste of my time since from what you've written so far you appear to have no insight into this issue whatsoever. Not only that, but you don't seem to be able to take any criticism of your opinions or the so-called rationale behind them without feeling as if you've been personally attacked, which makes me seriously doubt that you have the composure to engage in any kind of a rational debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Please. I've given you every opportunity to justify your opinions even though it is in all probability a complete waste of my time since from what you've written so far you appear to have no insight into this issue whatsoever. Not only that, but you don't seem to be able to take any criticism of your opinions or the so-called rationale behind them without feeling as if you've been personally attacked, which makes me seriously doubt that you have the composure to engage in any kind of a rational debate.

Ow, OW! Here it goes again. Arby is acting like a dick because he can get away with it. Nick don't worry what this guy has to say he won't ever chill out since he has a penis shoved up his ass and another in between his ears.

Damn bastard thinks he can mistreat anybody just because his dad left him and his mother.

EDIT: I do agree with Nick , abortion should only occur in the case of rape or incest(but Nick forgot to mention incest).

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Also, if you were raped, why not give the baby for adoption?

Well, Alban why would you want to continue the seed of an evil person and a weak person?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Given that you wrote: which explicitly outlines abortions in the case of rape in terms of an exception, I can only assume that you do not support the right to an abortion in cases not meeting that criterion. If that is not the case, then you need to do a better job of defining your position unambiguously so that such a degree of interpretation is not necessary.

I'm not quite sure what you're not understanding here. I said that I'm here to share my opinion, not try somehow to change policy. On this topic I like to share when and why I do and do not support an abortion. I even went on to clarify when I do support abortion, as when it comes to rape. How ambiguous is that?

Your first quotation of my response showed that I'm here to share my opinion "as to when and how I don't agree with an abortion being performed," and I went to to show in what circumstances I do agree with an abortion being performed. Is that confusing for you?

quote:

That's an ironic statement, given how well you handled me sharing my opinions about your "rationale."

I see, so you not only miss the sarcasm in my reply, you now acknowledge that your thoughts are merely "opinions" now, exactly what you told me was "egotistical and vacous." I see the irony in that.

quote:

Why don't you settle on what you really mean first, and then worry about how I might react to it?

I've been consistant throughout this thread. If you'd like to point out any inconsistancies, please do. As of now, it's just your rhetoric.

quote:

I don't see anything egocentric or philosophically vacuous about anything I've written, and I suspect that you wouldn't either if you had bothered to actually educate yourself about these rights before you formed opinions about them. I also do not see that I have personally attacked you in any way, given that all my attacks were directed at your argument, opinions, and/or rationale. It seems to me that you have no real argument or justification for your opinions, and that you have chosen them rather arbitrarily. Your decision to attempt to redirect the discussion onto some imaginary "personal attacks" rather than actually responding to any of the specific objections I raised to your statements can only be seen as evidence of the, as I said before, vacuous nature of your position, as can your apparent inability to settle upon a single well-defined position to begin with. If I am terse or impatient with you or your argument it is only because you offer nothing but the same tired and apparently ignorant opinions I've heard a thousand other times. I see very little in the way of rationale and none at all that I haven't considered but ultimately dismissed as fallacious many times before.

LOL. Yeah, no personal attacks there.

quote:

What's absurd is the idea that one possible outcome of a decision somehow eliminates a human being's inherent rights if that outcome should come to pass. I shouldn't need to go into the implications of such a ridiculous precedent.

Yes, how ridiculous.

Our entire legal system is based on a causality system. If I perform any action I am held responsible for the consequences of my actions, regardless if I intended for those consequences to occur. If I murder someone, or even attempt to, I am held responsible. If I attempt to rob a bank, I am held responsible. If my actions cause disorder or chaos, I am responsible. You can argue that all of those are pre-meditated, but even in cases where there is no pre-meditation, the attacker is still charged due to the consequences of their actions. You may not have sex with the pre-meditated notion of getting pregnant, but as I've said before, and I'll say again, the biological role of sex is reproduction. It is a known possible consequence of sex and the individual must realize and take responsiblity for those consequences.

I'll condense it to make it even simpler for you:

A very possible outcome of having sex is pregnancy. If you engange in sex, you are responsible for any of the outcomes that it may bring. If you are not willing to be responsible for these outcomes, you can make the decision not to have sex. However, by agreeing to have sex, you also agree to be responsible for the consequences, regardless if they impede your "personal freedoms."

quote:

Please. I've given you every opportunity to justify your opinions even though it is in all probability a complete waste of my time since from what you've written so far you appear to have no insight into this issue whatsoever. Not only that, but you don't seem to be able to take any criticism of your opinions or the so-called rationale behind them without feeling as if you've been personally attacked, which makes me seriously doubt that you have the composure to engage in any kind of a rational debate.

I have no problems with critism of my opinions. I do have a problem with someone calling my stances "egotistical and philosphically vacous." How exactly is that any sort of constructive or formative critique on another's ideas? Do you enjoy having conversations with those who decide to use such "high brow" slander? Your final sentence adds yet another personal "dig" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But hey, if you feel that this is a waste of your time, great. We were having a nice discussion on the matter before you chimed in without anyone having to label anyone elses opinions. I'm sure the debate will continue fine without your input. I hope you find something better to do with your time.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Also, if you were raped, why not give the baby for adoption?

To me, it goes back to individual responsiblity. If both the man and the woman are consenting, I think that the consequences of their actions (pregnancy, in this case) are their responsibilities. However, if one or the other was forced or coersed into sex, I do not see the pregnancy as their responsibility.

I know that this is a bit crude, but I guess it boils down to the old "if you can't serve the time, don't commit the crime" type of mentality. If you want to have sex, great. Just realize what the consequences may be and be responsible for them if they occur.

So arbiter, take a woman who gave birth to a normal healthy newborn. She asks the newborn to leave her house and to stop eating her food. The newborn does nothing but sits and looks at her. So she kicks the newborn out of the house and the newborn freezes to death. Are you saying that the woman should not be held responsible in any legal way because the newborn had no right to claim her property? Are you crazy???

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm not quite sure what you're not understanding here. I said that I'm here to share my opinion, not try somehow to change policy. On this topic I like to share when and why I do and do not support an abortion. I even went on to clarify when I do support abortion, as when it comes to rape. How ambiguous is that? Your first quotation of my response showed that I'm here to share my opinion "as to when and how I don't agree with an abortion being performed," and I went to to show in what circumstances I do agree with an abortion being performed.

Do you understand that there is a difference between "I do support an abortion" and "I do support the right to an abortion?"

If so, I think it's quite clear what the problem is.

quote:

I see, so you not only miss the sarcasm in my reply, you now acknowledge that your thoughts are merely "opinions" now, exactly what you told me was "egotistical and vacous." I see the irony in that.

You seem to have problems distinguishing between facts an opinions. Yes, I have offered some opinions regarding your the rationale you've described for your position (or positions, since you can't seem to keep your language straight.) That certainly doesn't imply that everything I've said is an opinion, nor is something "egotistical and vacous [sic]" merely because it is an opinion. Rather, it is the particular nature of your opinions, specifically the lack of any sound rationale which makes them vacuous, and it is your apparent belief that your opinions ought to govern the "right to an abortion" which makes them egotistical. In the future, you would do well to actually understand concepts before you try to use them yourself.

quote:

I've been consistant throughout this thread. If you'd like to point out any inconsistancies, please do. As of now, it's just your rhetoric.

Again I refer you to your own words, since you seem to be quick to forget them:

quote:

How would you have reacted if instead of saying "my opinion" I said "this is the way it should be." Would that have made it better for you?

You suggest that you might have said "this is the way it should be" instead of "[your] opinion." Given that there is a difference between the two, they are not simply exchangable at whim. So I suggested that you might make up your mind about which of the two possible claims accurately represents your position.

quote:

LOL. Yeah, no personal attacks there.

Absolutely not. It's quite apparent that you don't even understand what a personal attack is in the context of an argument.

quote:

Yes, how ridiculous. Our entire legal system is based on a causality system. If I perform any action I am held responsible for the consequences of my actions, regardless if I intended for those consequences to occur. If I murder someone, or even attempt to, I am held responsible. If I attempt to rob a bank, I am held responsible. If my actions cause disorder or chaos, I am responsible. You can argue that all of those are pre-meditated, but even in cases where there is no pre-meditation, the attacker is still charged due to the consequences of their actions. You may not have sex with the pre-meditated notion of getting pregnant, but as I've said before, and I'll say again, the biological role of sex is reproduction. It is a known possible consequence of sex and the individual must realize and take responsiblity for those consequences.

I regret to inform you that your argument is an example of the complex cause fallacy. Engaging in sexual intercourse is not a sufficient condition for pregnancy to arise, and sexual intercourse cannot be the sole cause of pregnancy. Indeed, it requires fertilization, and subsequent implantation in order for pregnancy to begin, and no one engaging in sexual intercourse has any control over whether or not fertilization occurs, nor can they influence whether or not the embryo becomes implated into the lining of the woman's uterus. Sexual intercourse fails to meet the standard of direct causality necessary for responsibility for pregnancy to be implied in any legal or rational sense.

If that type of indirect causality was sufficient to indicate an abdication of a human being's inherent rights, then think of all the rights you would have to sacrifice in order to have a party in your home where individuals you didn't know particularly well might be in attendance. Surely you are aware that a possible outcome of this choice is that someone might steal or damage some of your property. It's even within the realm of possibility that you could be raped or killed as a result of your choice to allow other individuals into your home. I doubt you'd suggest that you sacrifice your right to life, your right to personal sovereignty, or your property rights on the basis of your decision to have such a social gathering.

I'll say it again: sexual intercourse does not cause pregnancy, it merely provides the opportunity for pregnancy to arise. However, since the individuals engaging in sexual intercourse have no direct control over whether or not pregnancy results, their decision to pursue that course of action most certainly does not imply any degredation of their rights whatsoever. And to suggest that it does is, as I said before, quite completely "ridiculous."

quote:

I have no problems with critism of my opinions. I do have a problem with someone calling my stances "egotistical and philosphically vacous." How exactly is that any sort of constructive or formative critique on another's ideas? Do you enjoy having conversations with those who decide to use such "high brow" slander?

Well if you don't want anyone to call your stances egotistical or philosophically vacuous then you shouldn't take stances that meet with that description. Regardless, it isn't a personal attack against you if I describe your position in appropriately harsh language.

quote:

Your final sentence adds yet another personal "dig" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It was you that raised the issue, actually. You made this claim:

quote:

Honestly, if you'd like to have a debate in a civilized manner by presenting points and counter-points, I have no problem.

I called this claim into question and I provided the evidence that I believe suggests that it is indeed false. So what exactly is your problem?

quote:

But hey, if you feel that this is a waste of your time, great. We were having a nice discussion on the matter before you chimed in without anyone having to label anyone elses opinions. I'm sure the debate will continue fine without your input. I hope you find something better to do with your time.

It is quite obviously a waste of my time to try to get anything remotely intelligent out of you, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't expose the weakness of your arguments for the benefit of the "debate" at hand.