Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Abortion


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

#641
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.


Of course none of these things are the identical, but the principle is still the same. Why do you extend the logic of "choosing for yourself" to only certain things and not to others?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#642
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom
Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).
PM me for fitocracy invite

#643
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#644
Assume Nothing
[ Display Name History ]

Assume Nothing

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Places.
  • Joined:23 November 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired


Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.


If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health.

If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception.

If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.

#645
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired



Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.


If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health.

If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception.

If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.


A mother carrying a normal pregnancy to term does not forgo her right to life. The flaw with your argument is that while there will be some conflicting rights when two entities occupy the same body, it isn't always the case. The only way the mother's right to life is being threatened by pregnancy is if carrying the child to term will result in her death; an abnormal pregnancy in which case abortion becomes a morally acceptable medical procedure.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#646
Sly_Wizard
[ Display Name History ]

Sly_Wizard

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined:29 June 2004

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.


You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.

(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.

(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.

(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)

#647
Assume Nothing
[ Display Name History ]

Assume Nothing

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Places.
  • Joined:23 November 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired




Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.


If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health.

If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception.

If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.


A mother carrying a normal pregnancy to term does not forgo her right to life. The flaw with your argument is that while there will be some conflicting rights when two entities occupy the same body, it isn't always the case. The only way the mother's right to life is being threatened by pregnancy is if carrying the child to term will result in her death; an abnormal pregnancy in which case abortion becomes a morally acceptable medical procedure.


Do note that I mentioned three universal rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A normal pregnancy would still forego the mother's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness if she is obliged to carry the child against her will. The argument is whether an existing being's right has superiority over the rights of a dependent being that is not yet conscious.

Oh, and there's more rights I have yet to mention - such as the universal right to good health. It is possible that a pregnancy can harm a mother's health without causing death, which must also be accounted for in our arguments.

#648
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Do note that I mentioned three universal rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A normal pregnancy would still forego the mother's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness if she is obliged to carry the child against her will. The argument is whether an existing being's right has superiority over the rights of a dependent being that is not yet conscious.

Oh, and there's more rights I have yet to mention - such as the universal right to good health. It is possible that a pregnancy can harm a mother's health without causing death, which must also be accounted for in our arguments.

But you agree that a normal pregnancy does not infringe on the mother's right to life?

Could you please rank those three rights you mentioned in order of importance?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#649
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom


You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.


You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.

(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.

(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.

(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)



Because as I said, rape takes away the rape victim's right to their own body. And one person's right to their own body (especially in the case of rape) outstrip the rights of someone to be "happy" because they can rape people freely. Not to mention that rape sometimes ends in murder.
PM me for fitocracy invite

#650
Sly_Wizard
[ Display Name History ]

Sly_Wizard

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined:29 June 2004



You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.


You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.

(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.

(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.

(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)


Because as I said, rape takes away the rape victim's right to their own body. And one person's right to their own body (especially in the case of rape) outstrip the rights of someone to be "happy" because they can rape people freely. Not to mention that rape sometimes ends in murder.


And yet, you seem to have no qualms with taking away the unborn's rights to their own bodies. Presumably, this is because you're using some form of the "Because it's not a person it has no right to not be killed!" argument, but then you are burdened with explaining why the unborn are not. Any justification you can try to come up with will either lead to 'abortion-at-any-time-for-any-reason' (i.e., you'll base your argument on location) or you will put yourself on a slippery slope to where you also define some born individual out of rights based on some arbitrary quality (i.e., self-awareness). Unless you're going to take either position, you're going to have to play a liberal amount of mental gymnastics to even begin to justify your argument.

#651
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom
Fetuses aren't people because they aren't sentient. You can't use this on already born humans because they do not restrict the rights of anyone else and can survive on their own, plus we don't actually know when humans become sentient.


Yes, there are humans who have been born who are not people. Most humans under age 2 are probably not people (were you sentient at 2 years old?).
PM me for fitocracy invite

#652
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Fetuses aren't people because they aren't sentient. You can't use this on already born humans because they do not restrict the rights of anyone else and can survive on their own, plus we don't actually know when humans become sentient.


Yes, there are humans who have been born who are not people. Most humans under age 2 are probably not people (were you sentient at 2 years old?).

Lmao, I guess we can just kill them when they restrict their parents' right to liberty and happiness, because, you know, they aren't people.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this is. But on the one hand, you've nicely demonstrated why this pro-abortion argument is so flawed.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#653
Sly_Wizard
[ Display Name History ]

Sly_Wizard

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined:29 June 2004

Fetuses aren't people because they aren't sentient. You can't use this on already born humans because they do not restrict the rights of anyone else and can survive on their own, plus we don't actually know when humans become sentient.

Yes, there are humans who have been born who are not people. Most humans under age 2 are probably not people (were you sentient at 2 years old?).


.........

Well, first off, I think you mean self-aware, not sentient. If you poke a newborn with a needle, it will cry. Newborns, however, fail the mirror test, meaning they have no concept of themselves as individuals (which is what I think you mean). But regardless, did you really just say that it's okay to kill a newborn because (s)he might not be a person? I... I don't really even know what to say to you., aside from saying that these are the kinds of conclusions you reach when you start trying to justify why some subset of the population are persons and why others are not.

#654
Alg
[ Display Name History ]

Alg

    Troll General

  • Editorial Panel
  • 10,880 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California.
  • Joined:5 August 2006

Well, first off, I think you mean self-aware, not sentient. If you poke a newborn with a needle, it will cry. Newborns, however, fail the mirror test, meaning they have no concept of themselves as individuals (which is what I think you mean). But regardless, did you really just say that it's okay to kill a newborn because (s)he might not be a person? I... I don't really even know what to say to you., aside from saying that these are the kinds of conclusions you reach when you start trying to justify why some subset of the population are persons and why others are not.

The idea is that both a newborn and a fetus will, under normal circumstances, develop to fit any arbitrary definition of personhood you can make. That would be the problem, though, coming up with a definition of personhood that fits whatever side you're taking.

I mean, humans take 15 years to reach sexual maturity, and for more than half of that they would have a lot of trouble surviving on their own (If they can at all) and you can probably even extrapolate by saying that any individual without the means to support himself financially is not a person, if you were into that kind of thing. You really can't use the mirror test either, since that is most likely intended to represent a species as a whole, rather than a species at different stages in its life cycle. These arguments would probably work quite well if humans weren't a k-selected species (Few individuals born at a time, long development time, large investment by parents before young can survive on its own).

#655
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom


Fetuses aren't people because they aren't sentient. You can't use this on already born humans because they do not restrict the rights of anyone else and can survive on their own, plus we don't actually know when humans become sentient.


Yes, there are humans who have been born who are not people. Most humans under age 2 are probably not people (were you sentient at 2 years old?).

Lmao, I guess we can just kill them when they restrict their parents' right to liberty and happiness, because, you know, they aren't people.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this is. But on the one hand, you've nicely demonstrated why this pro-abortion argument is so flawed.


As I said in the post, "you can't use this on already born humans...". Meaning no, you cannot kill them because (read the post).

No, they're not people, but they do have a right to life since they do not restrict anyone else's rights and can survive on their own.


Fetuses aren't people because they aren't sentient. You can't use this on already born humans because they do not restrict the rights of anyone else and can survive on their own, plus we don't actually know when humans become sentient.

Yes, there are humans who have been born who are not people. Most humans under age 2 are probably not people (were you sentient at 2 years old?).


.........

Well, first off, I think you mean self-aware, not sentient. If you poke a newborn with a needle, it will cry. Newborns, however, fail the mirror test, meaning they have no concept of themselves as individuals (which is what I think you mean). But regardless, did you really just say that it's okay to kill a newborn because (s)he might not be a person? I... I don't really even know what to say to you., aside from saying that these are the kinds of conclusions you reach when you start trying to justify why some subset of the population are persons and why others are not.


Yes, I mean self-aware.

I did not say it was okay to kill a newborn. Do not put words in my mouth.
PM me for fitocracy invite

#656
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

As I said in the post, "you can't use this on already born humans...". Meaning no, you cannot kill them because (read the post).

No, they're not people, but they do have a right to life since they do not restrict anyone else's rights and can survive on their own.

A two year old can survive on their own?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#657
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom
You know exactly what I mean.
PM me for fitocracy invite

#658
Assume Nothing
[ Display Name History ]

Assume Nothing

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Places.
  • Joined:23 November 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired


As I said in the post, "you can't use this on already born humans...". Meaning no, you cannot kill them because (read the post).

No, they're not people, but they do have a right to life since they do not restrict anyone else's rights and can survive on their own.

A two year old can survive on their own?


Different context - their parents dying would not stop them from living.

#659
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
No, I don't know exactly what you mean.

You're seriously attempting to claim that a two year old is not a person, which is completely ridiculous.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#660
Assume Nothing
[ Display Name History ]

Assume Nothing

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Places.
  • Joined:23 November 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired
I did not make that claim.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users