Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[Endus]

What is so monumentally different to you after the baby comes out of the mother than any time before.

That there's a baby.

[spinner981]

Works both ways. She can't put the child up for adoption, either, if the father opposes it.

And that refutes what I was saying how? The mother can simply abort the child, remember? So no, it doesn't work both ways.

I didn't ignore the question of why sex=responsibility for the father but not the mother. I directly addressed it, by pointing out that sex did not equate responsibility for either, but having a child created that responsibility for both. There's no inequality, there.

And the "other discussion" was your attempt to equate being expected to pay child support or perform jury duty with being enslaved. It's a nonsense claim.

The mother is the only one who can decide to abort, the father's opinion matters not in the law. So if she gets pregnancy and has the child and keeps them, the father gains responsibility simply because he chose to have sex, because he made no decision that would influence that outcome between then and now.

And your only real response is calling it a 'nonsense claim' without explaining why it is such. Just like everything else in the world, there are differences between the physical ownership of a person and jury duty, but we aren't talking about those differences we are talking about the similarities. From this I can only assume that the only part of slavery you oppose is the 'ownership' part, and have absolutely no problem with forced labor and the presence of punishment if that labor is not performed, am I correct? If somebody else owned a slave, but never made them to do any labor and never punished them, and so for all intents and purposes they were free, you would still be just a strictly opposed to it as a form of slavery that involved forced labor and punishment, correct? I am assuming this because you don't see any problem with the forced labor and threat of punishment incorporated with jury duty and child support, but as soon as the allegation of 'ownership' comes into play then its suddenly immoral.

[Symphonic]

Are you saying you are for aborting a pregnancy at 8 months?

He has to believe that, because his arguments leave him no room to disagree with that statement. He's ok aborting a pregnancy at 42 weeks as long as the baby still hasn't come out. Which, is honestly what all pro-choice believe. You either are ok killing the fetus at any point in a pregnancy, or you're not ok killing the fetus because you have morals, a subjective opinion, that they learn and have actual brain function and an entire nervous system.

Even the planned parenthood president Cecile Richards believes the same. If the baby hasn't taken its first breath outside the womb, it's not immoral to destroy it.

If you're not ok killing the baby at 8 months, then you shouldn't be ok about it at all, except in extreme circumstances. (Rape, incest, mother's health in jeopardy)

- - - Updated - - -

That there's a baby.

If I have a box, and I put a wooden block inside, and close the box, it's still a wooden block. You just can't see it. But you can feel it when you shake the box, If you peeked inside, you'd see it. But to you, it does not exist unless it's not inside the box. That's how your argument sounds, I'd wager, to most people.

If I have a womb, and there is a baby inside, and the womb is inside the woman, it's still a baby. You just can't see it. But you can feel it when the baby kicks. If you peek inside using ultrasound, you'd see it. But to you, it does not exist because it hasn't come out of the womb.

[spinner981]

This is really just not correct. Codifying morality may have been the origin of legal systems, but that's not how they've effectively functioned for centuries, in the Western world. And they do so by objectively defining the concepts, to remove the very subjectivity that you're talking about. If the law were subjective, then whether someone had committed murder or not would be entirely down to how people felt about it. And that's not how the law works.

Once again, ignoring the actual topic of discussion. The only reason the law 'objectively' says that murder is wrong is because some dude subjectively feels that murder is wrong. You are acting as if a subjective opinion somehow becomes an objective truth just because somebody 'defines' what it is.

There's no "spin", you're just incorrect.

The right to abort is the right to terminate one's own pregnancy. If a man gets pregnant, he's got the right to abort, too. Women are also the only ones who can get ovarian cancer; does that make treating ovarian cancer "unfair", because men don't get as much coverage for the same issue?

This reminds me of a particular legal discussion about gay marriage, and about how everyone got all furious when I suggested that legally speaking there was no marriage inequality before it was 'legalized'. Of course you would agree with me, right Endus? Because the law said it was so and you only agree with something as long as the law says it.

But that is neither here nor there. Men don't get pregnant. It's not physically possible. If a woman has the right to bodily autonomy to refuse to use her body to care for her child, why does a man not have the right to bodily autonomy to refuse to use his body to work and care for the child?

Because it's so very clearly not true. Laws are objectively defined and set down in black and white, precisely to remove the influence of personal opinion.

They are based on personal opinions. Nothing else influences law apart from personal opinions about what should or shouldn't be legal. Whether or not they are 'objectively defined' is irrelevant. Objectively defining a subjective opinion doesn't make the opinion no longer subjective. Are you seriously suggesting that it does?

[Endus]

The mother is the only one who can decide to abort, the father's opinion matters not in the law.

Because only she is pregnant.

If he were pregnant, it'd be his say, alone.

So if she gets pregnancy and has the child and keeps them, the father gains responsibility simply because he chose to have sex, because he made no decision that would influence that outcome between then and now.

Parental responsibilities don't exist because of choices, in the first place. That's the central issue in your claim, here.

If I have a box, and I put a wooden block inside, and close the box, it's still a wooden block. You just can't see it. But you can feel it when you shake the box, If you peeked inside, you'd see it. But to you, it does not exist unless it's not inside the box. That's how your argument sounds, I'd wager, to most people.

It's more that I'm pointing out that an acorn isn't an oak tree.

[Santti]

Once again, ignoring the actual topic of discussion. The only reason the law 'objectively' says that murder is wrong is because some dude subjectively feels that murder is wrong. You are acting as if a subjective opinion somehow becomes an objective truth just because somebody 'defines' what it is.

No society could properly function if murder was allowed and not illegal. There is a very compelling, objective, reason why it's illegal.

[Sky High]

No society could properly function if murder was allowed and not illegal. There is a very compelling, objective, reason why it's illegal.

just wait! next he's going to say nothing in this world is objective and you saying something is objective is actually being subjective.

[Endus]

Once again, ignoring the actual topic of discussion. The only reason the law 'objectively' says that murder is wrong is because some dude subjectively feels that murder is wrong. You are acting as if a subjective opinion somehow becomes an objective truth just because somebody 'defines' what it is.

If you're talking about the idea that "killing is wrong", that's subjective. If you're talking about the idea that "murder is against the law", that's objective.

That shouldn't be hard to see.

This reminds me of a particular legal discussion about gay marriage, and about how everyone got all furious when I suggested that legally speaking there was no marriage inequality before it was 'legalized'. Of course you would agree with me, right Endus? Because the law said it was so and you only agree with something as long as the law says it.

Nope. Clear discrimination.

But that is neither here nor there. Men don't get pregnant. It's not physically possible. If a woman has the right to bodily autonomy to refuse to use her body to care for her child, why does a man not have the right to bodily autonomy to refuse to use his body to work and care for the child?

See, the difference here is that, if you want to compare it to the gay marriage debate, if no gay couples wanted to get married, but had the right, there'd be no inequity to address.

That wasn't the case.

With abortion, if either gender wants to abort their pregnancy, they can. It's just that only one gender generally has to face that decision. But not exclusively. There has been a pregnant man. Who didn't want an abortion, but the point remains; they wouldn't have been denied one because of their gender.

They are based on personal opinions. Nothing else influences law apart from personal opinions about what should or shouldn't be legal. Whether or not they are 'objectively defined' is irrelevant. Objectively defining a subjective opinion doesn't make the opinion no longer subjective. Are you seriously suggesting that it does?

I'm saying that laws are objective in nature. The opinions that were behind their creation may have been subjective, but that's irrelevant to their current existence.

Much like how an artist's subjective aesthetics determine the sculpture they craft, but that sculpture's form and existence are objective realities, once created.

[Symphonic]

It's more that I'm pointing out that an acorn isn't an oak tree.

Not really, you're making the argument that an acorn isn't an acorn. Which makes no sense. A baby is a baby. whether at 8 months in the womb, or at 9 months after the baby has come out of the womb.

[Endus]

Not really, you're making the argument that an acorn isn't an acorn. Which makes no sense. A baby is a baby. whether at 8 months in the womb, or at 9 months after the baby has come out of the womb.

If you want to extend that analogy, then the acorn is a fetus, and a seedling is a baby. Different stages, not the same thing.

[BannedForViews]

That there's a baby.

That is a horrible answer.

[Symphonic]

If you want to extend that analogy, then the acorn is a fetus, and a seedling is a baby. Different stages, not the same thing.

I am just trying to understand what difference it makes that a baby has exited the womb, but the previous day it isn't a baby. Perhaps it could help, because I don't think science actually supports the idea that an unborn baby is not an actual baby, just not born yet.

[Endus]

I am just trying to understand what difference it makes that a baby has exited the womb, but the previous day it isn't a baby. Perhaps it could help, because I don't think science actually supports the idea that an unborn baby is not an actual baby, just not born yet.

Generally, the difference is that one's been born, and the other hasn't.

That's not an insignificant or subtle distinction. And really, I'm not making the argument you seem to be trying to claim; I'm not arguing that an 8-month-old fetus is nothing and should be discarded as refuse. I'm saying if the pregnant woman wants to end that pregnancy, labor should be induced, to birth the fetus. At which point, it's a baby. It's been born alive. This isn't an argument for late-term abortions, at all.

[petej0]

Generally, the difference is that one's been born, and the other hasn't.

That's not an insignificant or subtle distinction. And really, I'm not making the argument you seem to be trying to claim; I'm not arguing that an 8-month-old fetus is nothing and should be discarded as refuse. I'm saying if the pregnant woman wants to end that pregnancy, labor should be induced, to birth the fetus. At which point, it's a baby. It's been born alive. This isn't an argument for late-term abortions, at all.

You would be ok with a woman at 8 months deciding she no longer wanted the baby to get induced at 8 months birth the baby that would then have to be treated as premi? Who would pay for the treatment of that new born?

[Endus]

You would be ok with a woman at 8 months deciding she no longer wanted the baby to get induced at 8 months birth the baby that would then have to be treated as premi? Who would pay for the treatment of that new born?

You realize I'm Canadian, right? Universal healthcare is a thing, up here.

[spinner981]

Parental responsibilities don't exist because of choices, in the first place. That's the central issue in your claim, here.

How are you working that out in your head? The responsibilities of a parent will happen regardless of the choices that the parents have made in their life? Are you saying that having children is some pre-determined event that is unavoidable by the parents?

It's more that I'm pointing out that an acorn isn't an oak tree.

Neither is a twig. Nor is a non-flowering rose a flower. But that doesn't stop us from calling that twig a tree and that non-flowering plant a flower.

No society could properly function if murder was allowed and not illegal. There is a very compelling, objective, reason why it's illegal.

Ultimately when you boil down to it, Sky High is exactly right. Whether or not society functions is irrelevant, and wanting society to function is ultimately a subjectively desired goal. If your reason for this law is to make sure society functions, that is a subjective goal. Even if your law is 'objectively defined' in order to attempt to maintain the function of society, it is still based on subjective opinions that you want society to function. Even if you attempt to objectively define it, that doesn't make the reasoning behind it (ie: the idea that society should be functional) objective.

You personally believe society should be functional, and you can objectively define a method in order to try and achieve that goal, regardless of whether or not it works. But your intention and reasoning as to why you are striving to achieve a functional society can never be anything except subjective opinion.

Now, I have to go to work. I do enjoy these discussions though, even though there are far too many people who are only too willing to resort to slander in the face of simple reality.

[Endus]

How are you working that out in your head? The responsibilities of a parent will happen regardless of the choices that the parents have made in their life? Are you saying that having children is some pre-determined event that is unavoidable by the parents?

No, I'm saying the existence of the child is what creates those responsibilities. Not any prior decisions.

For instance; once you accept the parental responsibilities by adopting a kid, you didn't make any agreement to sex with either biological parent, but somehow, you have parental obligations. Because you're a parent, and that is what creates those responsibilities.

[wheresmywoft]

The irony. Of course it's not, and neither is pregnancy and birth. My examples prove that for every choice there is a possible consequence. If you have sex, you're not likely to get pregnant. First of all, the woman has to be fertile. This can be checked by her anytime she uses the bathroom. She will have discharge. She should be able to tell that her body has become fertile, and the discharge is what helps the sperm survive the journey. Sperm live for about 5 days (the female ones live longest usually). Out of an entire month, there's like 5-8 days that she could get pregnant. So my examples are not about being killed or not. My examples are that even though it's unlikely, it can still happen, and you should be prepared for it. Buckle up, wear a helmet, use a condom, and know that if you have sex while she is fertile, you may end up with a baby.

Even people who buckle and get in a car accident might have to go to the hospital.

The irony? You realize your argument is what lead up to the ridiculous claim right?

Have you given this any thought?

[Sliske]

When you start arbitrarily caring when people die and live, I lose all respect for you. We all know how ridiculous the Harambe and Cecil the Lion shit is, when no one in the crowd shouting for justice gives a crap about the other Gorillas and Lions that are in danger.

Likewise, shit like a homeless guy's story going viral. You give a shit about that homeless guy for 45 minutes and act like homelessness is the biggest problem on the planet. You yourself, don't then go out and give out blankets and food to the homeless people living in your town - no, you'd rather just virtue signal.

Then we get to abortion. Yeah, obviously no one likes abortion. Its killing babies, for fucks sake. But you have to look at the actual scenarios involved. We have 7.5 billion people on the planet. Do we really need to ensure that every unwanted, unborn fetus is carried to birth? Do we really need to protect every rape fetus?

Its been said a billion times, but i'll say it again - i find it not only hypocritical, but also insulting and possibly dangerous that you arbitrarily give out compassion. You don't care about the fetus after its born. You don't care about it when its homeless or unloved / unwanted. You only care about your own principal - that no fetus is allowed to die on your watch, no matter the scenario.

Its the same with all of the latest SJW groups. You mask your own self interests with a "we care" outward appearence. When a man is shot by police, a normal person says: What happened? What did he do that got him shot? They evaluate the situation and the evidence, then deem it rightful or wrongful.

When a virtue signaller learns of the same incident, their first reaction is "what was his skin colour?" The point is they don't care who he is, or what he has done. They care WHAT he is. Likewise, with most "pro lifers" that i've seen, they don't care who the baby is, who the mother is or what has happened. they care about WHAT they baby is - a baby. They dehumanize the situation, by focusing only on the fact that they're a human, or black, or asian, or a woman. Whatever it may be.

And while i'm at it "pro life" has got to be one of the most condescending names ever. You aren't "pro life" when it comes to ensuring homeless people don't freeze to death on the streets during winter. You aren't "pro life" when it comes to the immigrants fleeing dictators and terrorism. You're "pro life" when it suits you.

Arbitrary "compassion" shifts the focus off the individual and turns it onto the collective. Killing babies (collective) = bad. Aborting a rape fetus = good. Remove the individual incident, and focus on the collective and you arrive at a scary unfeeling, compassionless society. Its ironic that the same people who appose any and all abortion, are the same people that stand on the street shouting "communism is evil!"

[zenkai]

When you start arbitrarily caring when people die and live, I lose all respect for you. We all know how ridiculous the Harambe and Cecil the Lion shit is, when no one in the crowd shouting for justice gives a crap about the other Gorillas and Lions that are in danger.

Likewise, shit like a homeless guy's story going viral. You give a shit about that homeless guy for 45 minutes and act like homelessness is the biggest problem on the planet. You yourself, don't then go out and give out blankets and food to the homeless people living in your town - no, you'd rather just virtue signal.

Then we get to abortion. Yeah, obviously no one likes abortion. Its killing babies, for fucks sake. But you have to look at the actual scenarios involved. We have 7.5 billion people on the planet. Do we really need to ensure that every unwanted, unborn fetus is carried to birth? Do we really need to protect every rape fetus?

Its been said a billion times, but i'll say it again - i find it not only hypocritical, but also insulting and possibly dangerous that you arbitrarily give out compassion. You don't care about the fetus after its born. You don't care about it when its homeless or unloved / unwanted. You only care about your own principal - that no fetus is allowed to die on your watch, no matter the scenario.

Its the same with all of the latest SJW groups. You mask your own self interests with a "we care" outward appearence. When a man is shot by police, a normal person says: What happened? What did he do that got him shot? They evaluate the situation and the evidence, then deem it rightful or wrongful.

When a virtue signaller learns of the same incident, their first reaction is "what was his skin colour?" The point is they don't care who he is, or what he has done. They care WHAT he is. Likewise, with most "pro lifers" that i've seen, they don't care who the baby is, who the mother is or what has happened. they care about WHAT they baby is - a baby. They dehumanize the situation, by focusing only on the fact that they're a human, or black, or asian, or a woman. Whatever it may be.

And while i'm at it "pro life" has got to be one of the most condescending names ever. You aren't "pro life" when it comes to ensuring homeless people don't freeze to death on the streets during winter. You aren't "pro life" when it comes to the immigrants fleeing dictators and terrorism. You're "pro life" when it suits you.

Arbitrary "compassion" shifts the focus off the individual and turns it onto the collective. Killing babies (collective) = bad. Aborting a rape fetus = good. Remove the individual incident, and focus on the collective and you arrive at a scary unfeeling, compassionless society. Its ironic that the same people who appose any and all abortion, are the same people that stand on the street shouting "communism is evil!"

With that logic, is it ok with someone kills you? After all there are too many people on the planet and after 45 seconds no one will care.