what do you identify as politically?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm not saying im a opponent of Abortion as a whole, but when women act like "how dare this parasite invade my body" when they themselves invited it is comical to me.

People have sex for pleasure. That's a fact. Sex is not automatic consent for a pregnancy, especially if a contraceptive is used. That's why this recent hobby lobby decision is so hilarious. Because contraceptive use reduces the need for actual abortions. But apparently abortion in the eyes of the religiously zealous is now defined as "preventing an egg from being fertilized".

- - - Updated - - -

Unless the baby is jesus, and just appeared in her womb her having sex is consent to having a child.

This idea that sex is only for reproduction went out of date sometime in the early 20th century. I'd say it's starting to stink from being rotten, but at this point it's really just sun bleached bones.

Considering the amount of lamb-bladder condoms and recipes for contraceptives and abortion potions we've found in ancient texts, sex being only for reproduction was actually a rather cult-only idea.

[Theinquisition]

People have sex for pleasure. That's a fact. Sex is not automatic consent for a pregnancy, especially if a contraceptive is used. That's why this recent hobby lobby decision is so hilarious. Because contraceptive use reduces the need for actual abortions. But apparently abortion in the eyes of the religiously zealous is now defined as "preventing an egg from being fertilized".

- - - Updated - - -



This idea that sex is only for reproduction went out of date sometime in the early 20th century. I'd say it's starting to stink from being rotten, but at this point it's really just sun bleached bones.

Considering the amount of lamb-bladder condoms and recipes for contraceptives and abortion potions we've found in ancient texts, sex being only for reproduction was actually a rather cult-only idea.

Honestly I could care less if someone gets a abortion, its none of my buisness. like I said I just think its intresting when a woman gets indignant about the fact she got pregnant.

It's just like....duh it happens.

[Adhemar]

No one said this. I'm not going to bother with your wall of text when you fail this badly right off the bat.

That's exactly what he said. When asked to prove that abortion was not murder and should therefore be legal, he attempted to demonstrate proof by relying on the fact that it's legal. This is substituting effect for cause, which is circular logic.

People have sex for pleasure. That's a fact. Sex is not automatic consent for a pregnancy, especially if a contraceptive is used. That's why this recent hobby lobby decision is so hilarious. Because contraceptive use reduces the need for actual abortions. But apparently abortion in the eyes of the religiously zealous is now defined as "preventing an egg from being fertilized".

Action has consequences, and participating in an action is inherent acceptance of the consequences, so, yes, it's automatic consent for ALL of the effects it has on your body, not just the ones you want.

This idea that sex is only for reproduction went out of date sometime in the early 20th century. I'd say it's starting to stink from being rotten, but at this point it's really just sun bleached bones.

Considering the amount of lamb-bladder condoms and recipes for contraceptives and abortion potions we've found in ancient texts, sex being only for reproduction was actually a rather cult-only idea.

Where did he say that was the only reason to have sex? I must have missed that.

[Wells]

That's exactly what he said. When asked to prove that abortion was not murder and should therefore be legal, he attempted to demonstrate proof by relying on the fact that it's legal. This is substituting effect for cause, which is circular logic.

You seem confused on what the word murder means.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Where did he say that was the only reason to have sex? I must have missed that.

Implying that sex is automatic consent to having a child.

[Deleted]

That's exactly what he said. When asked to prove that abortion was not murder and should therefore be legal, he attempted to demonstrate proof by relying on the fact that it's legal. This is substituting effect for cause, which is circular logic.

If something is legal then it is not murder. That is a fact. If you are calling an abortion murder in a country where it is legal then you are wrong.

[Kraenen]

Did we learn what taxes are for yet?

I don't know what they are but I don't like them

[Dezerte]

Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that. What's with you all pointing out the useful stuff but leave out where the bulk of the taxes goes? The things you listed are only like 25% tops, where does the rest of the money go to?

You connect wirelessly to a station, true. But that station is also in turn connected to cables, so in effect you are using that infrastructure.

[-aiko-]

I identify as an independent but here are where my views seem to lie:

[Adhemar]

If something is legal then it is not murder. That is a fact. If you are calling an abortion murder in a country where it is legal then you are wrong.

So abortion is not murder simply because the legislature says so? That's really your position? I'm glad our laws are grounded in such unassailable and objective philosophies.

[Wells]

So abortion is not murder simply because the legislature says so? That's really your position? I'm glad our laws are grounded in such unassailable and objective philosophies.

Yes, I'm glad you've figured out that for something to be unlawful homicide it has to be against the law.

[Deleted]

So abortion is not murder simply because the legislature says so? That's really your position? I'm glad our laws are grounded in such unassailable and objective philosophies.

That's not my position, it is the very meaning of the word 'murder'. Murder refers specifically to an unlawful killing.

You can believe that it should be murder but if you claim that it already is murder then you are wrong.

[Itisamuh]

So abortion is not murder simply because the legislature says so? That's really your position? I'm glad our laws are grounded in such unassailable and objective philosophies.

You should rephrase it to "killing a growing human being" instead of "murder" to avoid the goofy legal loophole responses.

[MetroStratics]

Nonexistant.
Only thing worse then the squabbling that takes place here over the smallest irrelevant change is when it happens in a political venue.

[Captain N]

You should rephrase it to "killing a growing human being" instead of "murder" to avoid the goofy legal loophole responses.

It's not a Human Being until it can operate independently from the Mother. Otherwise it's the same as cancer cells and the same as any other parasite.

[Adhemar]

Implying that sex is automatic consent to having a child.

Sex is automatic consent for all of the direct consequences of the act. Anyone who has consensual sex should know that a possible outcome (even if you use contraception) is pregnancy. Those who choose to engage in sexual intercourse are therefore responsible for the consequences. Embryos do not infiltrate your body through your mucus membranes and simply attach themselves, nor are they malignant cancerous tumors. Excepting circumstances where consent was not given for sexual intercourse, the mother bears some level of responsibility for creating that embryo (it didn't "just happen").

Does that mean procreation is the only reason to have sex? No. But procreation is a foreseeable possible outcome of having sex and if you have sex that results in procreation, you're responsible for that action and the outcome. Whether or not that responsibility results in an obligation to permit the embryo to grow is a different matter and you're purposely conflating them to attempt to ridicule someone else's perfectly legitimate (if subjective) perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not my position, it is the very meaning of the word 'murder'. Murder refers specifically to an unlawful killing.

You can believe that it should be murder but if you claim that it already is murder then you are wrong.

Circular logic again. No one was ever claiming it is already illegal, and this is very clearly an attempt to avoid the issue, because not avoiding it would require exposing your own personal, subjective belief on the subject. Which is why no one making this argument will specify what defines personhood. There is no objective definition.

[Wells]

You clearly do not understand what circular logic is.

[Deleted]

Circular logic again. No one was ever claiming it is already illegal, and this is very clearly an attempt to avoid the issue, because not avoiding it would require exposing your own personal, subjective belief on the subject. Which is why no one making this argument will specify what defines personhood. There is no objective definition.

Anybody who says an abortion IS murder is claiming it is illegal through the use of that word.

My own subjective belief on the subject? I don't care whether a foetus is a 'person' or not. While it acts as a parasite and requires a woman's body to 'live' then it should be the woman's choice to remove it. Her right to autonomy exceeds its right to the body of another.

[Adhemar]

Yes, I'm glad you've figured out that for something to be unlawful homicide it has to be against the law.

Okay, genius. Let me walk you through the argument step by step, since you seemed to have missed the point. I said defining abortion as murder comes down to a subjective belief (otherwise referred to as an opinion). Endus said people who believe abortion is murder are objectively wrong. You both said "it's the legal definition, ergo it is proved." Here's the problem: the legislature (and therefore the law) is not objective.

GG, you lose. Thanks for playing.

[Wells]

Okay, genius. Let me walk you through the argument step by step, since you seemed to have missed the point. I said defining abortion as murder comes down to a subjective belief (otherwise referred to as an opinion). Endus said people who believe abortion is murder are objectively wrong. You both said "it's the legal definition, ergo it is proved." Here's the problem: the legislature (and therefore the law) is not objective.

Murder is a legal term. Legal terms are not matters of subjective belief.

GG, you lose. Thanks for playing

Try playing this card after you figure out what circular logic is.