I also didn't realize that the man running the company was in no way affected by his companies losses being subsidized by the taxpayer. What would I do without you, sir?
So, I just got back from visiting my local Mosque...
- Thread starter NoleSoup4U
- Start date
I also didn't realize that the man running the company was in no way affected by his companies losses being subsidized by the taxpayer. What would I do without you, sir?
So you believe the mother has the right to have an abortion and it is the same as the baby's right to life? Same value so somebody has to lose?
In your scenario, you incorrectly framed the options as allowed to have abortion for fear of complications. Why are are you scoping this down to those that fear complications? In many cases, they just don't want to have a baby. They aren't afraid they are going to die.
So, we're back to statistics again? You can just say "statistics" at this point. I know what you're getting at. You don't have to waste your time writing out a whole post.
Look, if you feel like we should hinge someone's life and liberty on some kind of statistic, that's your prerogative. Once again, I don't agree with that.
Are you actually trying to pretend that you didn't post this:
Your little story had three different potential outcomes. What we are discussing only had two potential outcomes. It breaks down like this.
Your story (three outcomes):
1) You kill the guy before he can kill you. You infringe on his liberties.
2) You decide not to kill the guy and he kills you. He infringes on your liberties.
3) You decide not to kill the guy and nothing happens. Nobody infringes on anyone's liberties.
What we are discussing (two outcomes):
1) You're allowed to have an abortion due to fearing complications. You infringe on the fetus' liberties.
2) You can't have an abortion even though you fear complications. The fetus is infringing upon your rights.
You don't have that third option with this issue like you do in your little story. There is no outcome here where someone's liberties don't get infringed upon.
You made a mistake. There is a 3rd option in the abortion case and it is parallel to the 3rd option in the elevator case. Your attempt to wiggle out based on differentiating outcomes from infringement of rights is nonsensical.
I will add the infringement commentary that you used, even though it should be a given for any logical person...
1) You get an abortion and kill the fetus. You infringe on the fetuses liberties.
2) You don't and die of complications. Your liberties are infringed upon.
3) You decide to not kill the fetus and you both live. Nobody infringes on anybody's liberties.
You lose.
Last edited:
You would be the same without me or anyone else here, as I pointed out, your ability to double then triple down with little growth is what makes you amusing.
First of all, did you actually read the whole post?
If you did read the whole post, did you see the part that discusses the liberties?
If you read all of this. Do you see how one idea is talking about an issue and the other idea is talking about the decisions that are spawned from that issue?
If you don't see this then I don't know what to tell you. You just don't see it. I don't know how you can try to compare two different ideas without first changing one like you're doing. At this point I've even broken it down other ways and you still don't get it. I don't know what else to tell you at this point.
What statistic? You are making your decision to allow abortions because you are concerned the women will lose her right to an abortion. If you not making this claim, Ragle is correct and their is an identical third option in the elevator scenario. If you are making this claim, you must also believe a women's right to an abortion outweighs a fetus's right to life. And you have already stated a fetus has the right to life.
Of course, you realize what started this whole discussion, right? It was your claims that my claims about government sponsorship of Tesla was unfounded. You told me that the article didn't contain any proof when it spells it out pretty distinctly in three or four places how this has happened.
"In many cases, they just don't want to have a baby. They aren't afraid they are going to die."
This is no different than your prior argument that only a certain percentage of women would die if abortion was outlawed. You're trying to use a statistic to do away with someone's liberty. Again, I don't agree with this.
There you go, simplifying it again, is that a strategy that Everest teaches? Eliminate all detail and nuance to bring it to terms your mind can easily choose 'good' or 'bad'
I don't think pointing out your scenario does apply to many (most?) abortions is relying on a statistic. But I give up. Ragle has done a good job of explaining your flawed logic. You haven't adequately explained why his option 3 in the elevator isn't the same as your option 3. I'll spend no more time on this today.
Damn it, kid! I told you that I transferred to Trump University!
And yeah, when an article says in a few different places that the business has received government subsidies, and then goes on to point out how they have gotten these subsidies, then I generally take the information at face value.
Like I said, just say "statistics" it'll make life easier on you.
And Ragle hasn't explained anything from my end. All Ragle has done is try to change my argument.
I do understand why it's so critical for you to cling to refusing "statistics." You are tying the woman's right to an abortion and the fact that it trumps a fetus' right to life based on the possibility of death in every pregnancy... not a pregnancy with complications, but any pregnancy. It doesn't matter how many times you dismiss statistics, this is an incredibly stupid decision. If stats don't matter, then it wouldn't matter if 1 in 10 mothers die in childbirth, or 20 in 100,000 as is the case. In fact, it wouldn't matter if 1 in 1,000,000 die in childbirth or 1 in the history of childbirth. If the stats don't matter, then you're admitting that it's alright to violate another's right to life in the protection of yours and that it is this protection of life that is a liberty. YOU were the one who introduced the risk of death being relevant in the mothers right to an abortion.
Similarly, I am at risk of being killed by someone who steps onto an elevator with me. It might be a very small risk, but we've established that the "statistics" don't matter. Because of the risk that does exist, a person is justified in killing the other person to avoid the risk, however small, of being killed.
Your problem is tying the risk to the mothers liberties. If you didn't do this, then you would be acknowledging that it is the right to an abortion in and of itself, even without risk, that trumps the life of the fetus, which would disprove your insistence that the fetus has a right to life.
Does that help you understand why you're wrong?
First of all, if you want to discuss the reason of my full argument, then you should probably use my full argument which you aren't doing.
Second, for I believe the third time on this same page, I will explain how I don't think someone's liberties should be taken away because of a statistical improbability. In my opinion it is an extremely bad idea to try to use random chance as a reason to justify playing god with other peoples' lives.
20 in 100,000 women die during childbirth. That is random chance, a very low chance in fact, that you are using as a reason to justify playing God with the life of the fetus.
You lose.
Like I said, I don't like to use random chance to justify playing god with other peoples' lives.
Second, that isn't the only death and destruction that would be caused by making abortion illegal.
Because I know it's coming, WHAT the statistic actually is, is irrelevant. It's the random chance of death that you have used to infringe on the liberties of the fetus.
When you take a life without being able to prove an appropriate level of risk or threat against your own life, that's called murder. This is what Natch has been trying to explain to you all along.
Hey man, are you coming over to Strumm's later on today? He, unIowa, and I are going to have some beers and barbecue while we guillotine us some fetuses. You guys are all cordially invited.
But you are using random chance to play God with the life of the fetus. Either you endorse murder or you actually don't think the fetus has the SAME right to life as the mother.
Which is it?
We know they do. When one person with liberties takes the life of the other who also has liberties without showing that they had a legitimate justification, such as they legitimately feared imminent death, it's called murder.
Do you endorse murder or admit that the fetus does not hold the same right to life as a person who has been born?
Simple, but direct.
It is interesting watching people be incapable of understanding each other... even with the same language and living in the same country. All of us here in this discussion have obvious intelligence. But, the thought processes, and more distinctly, the instinctive ability for a more abstract understanding, are not the same. It's kind of like Pinto having the Universe discussion with Professor Jennings in the bathroom in Animal House. Except Pinto gets it and expands on it.
Intelligence doesn't mean wisdom, or even knowledge. I was trying to be as kind and honest as I could be in that statement.
Well, if you refuse to see intelligence where I see it, that's fine. But, it doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.
You. Can't. Know. That. Nobody can.
If you understood that both sides have liberties then you would truly understand my argument.
And you still haven't even started to discuss the death and destruction that would be brought about by a black market.
We know that standing in front of a judge and telling him that you feared for your life with absolutely no evidence of that threat will not get you off a murder charge for taking a life.
How could you possibly view a fetus as having the exact same right to life as a human yet endorse using random chance (and a very very low chance I might add) as a justification for playing God with the life of the fetus?
Are you saying that there is no evidence of healthy women dying during child birth?
Are you saying that there is no evidence of healthy people being murdered randomly? When you take a life, the amount of danger you were in is of paramount importance. Saying, "well you don't know if I might die during birth", when there is absolutely no evidence that this was likely, is not a compelling defense if you believe the fetus has the identical right to life as a person.
There is a possibility of death all day every day. It is absolutely bizarre that you have latched ahold of the notion that any possibility of death, no matter how small, is a justification for murder. "Well you don't know that the person I killed wasn't about to kill me?"
You guys and your poor analogies.
Once again, how is a judge going to know if a woman is in danger if a doctor doesn't know if she is in danger?
It's not a poor analogy. The woman is not in danger. The fact that a very small percentage of women die due to complications does not mean that she is in enough peril to justify murdering the fetus before she is actually in danger. Think about that... you can't kill somebody because you might eventually be in danger, you have to BE in danger. This is why many talk about approving of abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. You seem to advocate proactive murder based on the justification that it's possible the mother might eventually be in danger during birth. It's absolutely bizarre.
Similarly, nobody knows if the scary looking man in the elevator is going to kill me, which is why I actually have to BE in danger in order to kill him, otherwise it's murder.
This would make more sense if you defended the right to an abortion in cases where the mother's life was in danger. Why are you in such a hurry to kill the fetus? Sheesh... especially when you're the one who says it has the exact same right to life as a person. So dumb.
You lose.
Last edited:
Good lord. Do you people have jobs or hobbies? 12 pages of circle jerking in a day. I'm sure Natural enjoys this back spooge festival, but the rest of you are just fruit loops.
Similar threads
