“You have systematically and arbitrarily dismissed everything that dares disagree with your position”
Give one example. Show me one example of me doing this, otherwise it is just another baseless accusation from you.
Here it is…you have utterly failed to answer this simple question viz:
Should women have bodily autonomy or not?
Well, do we expect an answer?
1 Like
“Here it is…you have utterly failed to answer this simple question viz:”
Sadly you again miss the point, but it is only to be expected i guess.
Here it is…you have utterly failed to answer this simple question viz:
Should women have bodily autonomy or not?
Well, do we expect an answer? Or have you run out oof obfuscation, ad hominem and distractions?
1 Like
“Or have you run out oof obfuscation, ad hominem and distractions?”
Really? care to provide an example. Wait you don’t back up your claims, just cite yourself as a source and pretend like you have made a point.
Oh dear, you cant just answer the question? You are looking a very immature fool now…
Should women have bodily autonomy or not
A very simple question that most grade schoolers can answer, but one, strangely you have an inability to give a coherent response.
“strangely you have an inability to give a coherent response.”
It’s called projecting, and your doing it now.
AlphaLogica157, post:85,
“in my experience, within the context of debates about abortion, it is usually in an arbitrary way to claim conception is immediately comparable with a fully sentient human being. As of course the thread author has done in this case.”When talking about where we can claim life to begin, the only logical and empirical point we have to start is at the beginning of the very biological process that creates life as we know it…THIS IS NOT ARBITRARY.
I never tried to move it, so that’s a lie, and I already addressed your arbitrary claim, and explained why it is arbitrary and an irrelevant straw man in this debate. Here it is again then, see if you can actually address what I wrote, instead of simply shouting a denial of your arbitrary dogma.
1 Like
You’re not your, and you failed to answer OMS’s question, again. And if anyone is projecting it’s you, you are being arbitrary and dogmatic and refusing to actually debate the topic, then dishonestly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of that behaviour.
Why are you refusing to say whether a woman should have autonomy over her own body, it is central to the debate. To take control of a person’s body away from them is the very definition of enslavement, as has been explained multiple ties. Do you consider enslavement to ever be moral?
2 Likes
You must be trolling, as this is just too obviously an example of the very obfuscation and ad hominem OMS just described, where you made an unrelated attack on OMS rather than answering his question.
Should women have bodily autonomy or not?
Will you dare evade it yet again, and deny you are obfuscating?
1 Like
Naaaaawwwww! Think so? Let’s see… He poo poos any logic thrown his way. the only argument he has And keep repeating the same idiotic bullshit over and over. (Could he just be confused and deluded and not actually a troll?) Probably not.
2 Likes
Tbh he seems to behave reasonably well in some other threads, it’s as if he has a complete blind spot where abortion is concerned. The irony of him accusing others of being arbitrary and dogmatic on the topic is pretty ironic though.
2 Likes
It is you’re or “you are”.
Secondly you have just given the finest of examples of an inability to give a coherent response to a very simple question. A question that goes to the heart of the abortion debate.
Now, do try to answer this simple question: Should women have bodily autonomy or not
1 Like
@Sheldon
“You must be trolling, as this is just too obviously an example of the very obfuscation and ad hominem OMS just described, where you made an unrelated attack on OMS rather than answering his question.”
You are like 50 posts out of the loop on this so, long story short i am only responding in kind.
“in my experience, within the context of debates about abortion, it is usually in an arbitrary way to claim conception is immediately comparable with a fully sentient human being. As of course the thread author has done in this case.”
That has not at all been shown to be true.
“I never tried to move it, so that’s a lie”
Move what? what are you talking about, what lie?
“I already addressed your arbitrary claim, and explained why it is arbitrary and an irrelevant straw man in this debate.”
No you have not.
Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
Straw man fallacy:
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.
So now that we have the definitions for both arbitrary and straw man we can see if my argument meets these definitions.
If you look at my Op I argue that: However, there is no precise medical or legal definition of “late-term,” and many doctors and scientists avoid that language, calling it imprecise and misleading. So it seems to me that the only logically consistent position is that life begins at the beginning of the life process, conception. (meant to say insemination, I correct this in later responses)
This is not arbitrary, it was not determined by chance, whim, or impulse, but it was determined by reason and principle. My reason is clear, life can be found at the beginning of the biological process that creates life.This process is real, the result is real. We call that result life, we see the role it takes in creating life. So no straw man here, as i did not create the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. I was trying to get the argument started, trying to find the proper idea for the argument, attempting to set a starting point for the discussion. You came at me with accusations of wanting to enslave women lol. Yet no where did I ever say anything even remotely close to that.
I go on the raise the valid question: If they cannot even accurately define one trimester from the next, how can they be expected to accurately define when life does or does not begin?
I go on the argue: There seems to be to be an unwillingness to honestly asses the arguments from the pro-life side of the debate. Instead of an honest critique of their position, there is instead the outright regurgitation of pro-choice talking points, mockery in lieu of an argument, and self-congratulatory circle-jerking.
I have been vindicated on that point time and time again, just in this thread alone.
but again , no straw man here.
Under the section: Overt attachment to political Dogma I say: I would certainly argue that the position of ‘her body, her choice’ is one held not on reason or empirical evidence, but on dogma and dogma alone, by those who also identify as liberal or progressive.
Dogma is defined as: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.
I support this claim by giving the example: When a child in the womb gets hiccups, it is not the mother who has hiccups. Here we have an event that is within the body of the mother but entirely separate from her. For it is the child who is having muscle spasms, not the mother.
Since the talking point I raised was ‘her body, her choice’ I gave an event, physically exclusive to the baby in the womb, to add to my initial assertion that: There are many examples both anecdotal and empirical that show that a child in a womb is not a ‘part’ of the mother’s body, in the same way as a pancreases or liver.
So the accusations of my argument as arbitrary and straw manning is simply not true. As I have shown.
Now to get to your final response:
"Though of course it is absurdly facile to assert that an insentient blastocyst that is little more than a clump of cells, is a human life in the same sense the woman carrying it is a human life. "
Why? Says who? Based on what?
“Rather pregnancy involves stages of development from conception through to childbirth, and it adds nothing to the debate to try and generalise in this arbitrary way,”
I have already shown that this is not true. The stages are hard to define and that does not counter my argument that life begins at the first step in the process, which is easy to point to as insemination.
“the fact a foetus is alive tells us nothing, sperm are alive, they can remain so in a woman’s uterus for up to 5 days.”
They are not alive in the same sense, for example is masturbation tantamount to genocide? No, obviously not. A sperm left alone will die, but an inseminated egg left alone will develop into a human being. There is a major difference here.
“What about the morning after pill, it prevents a fertilised egg from attaching to the uterus, so by your criteria this is terminating a life, who decides this and why?”
I have already answered this question, yes it would count as a termination of the pregnancy, since you are taking an active role in it.
oof, scraping for the bottom of the barrel there? Man you are getting desperate.
“You’re not your, and you failed to answer OMS’s question, again.”
If he wants the answer he knows what he has to do first. He knows this, he just can’t.
“You are being arbitrary and dogmatic and refusing to actually debate the topic, then dishonestly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of that behaviour.”
Not true.
"Why are you refusing to say whether a woman should have autonomy over her own body, it is central to the debate.
Because no where in any of my arguments did i make the claim that a woman does NOT have autonomy over her own body, he claimed I did, I asked for proof, and he just quotes himself making the initial accusation. AS IF this proves anything lol.
" To take control of a person’s body away from them is the very definition of enslavement, as has been explained multiple ties."
Times not “ties” (see how easy this is?)
I never argued for taking away control from a persons body, I have stated the opposite multiple times.
“Do you consider enslavement to ever be moral?”
No.
And still no answer the heart of the matter you brought to the table: Should women have bodily autonomy or not?
Can’t bring your incel self to actually admit your position?
I can answer ,yes I believe and will fight for any woman to have bodily autonomy. How about you, Incel? See how easy that was? Just tell the truth.
" How about you, Incel?"
Wow, you claim to be able to magically ascertain the entirety of my character via a message board, while at the same time, claiming to know my sex life via a message board?
Think about that-- and so good of you to be above the ad hominem.
Oh, I am not above calling out a misogynist anytime, especially one who is so deathly afraid to answer such a simple question:should women have bodily autonomy or not?
Any chance of an answer?
Chook…
I’ll address only
Your responses to me in regards “counter-arguments” Please point to one argument I skipped?
And misogyny. its the accusation of misogyny that i take issue with
(Not other posters to whom you have or have not responded)
Your “argument” from the beginning:
-The argument most often attached to the abortion debate is one of choice…that the choice is one of arbitrarily drawing a line of division and claiming that before this point, not life–while after this point–life.
-So it seems to me that the only logically consistent position is that life begins at the beginning of the life process, conception; then it seem to me that the most humanitarian approach is to lean towards the assumption that life begins at the start of the biological process that creates life.
-…unwillingness to honestly asses the arguments from the pro-life side of the debate. I would certainly argue that the position of ‘her body, her choice’ is one held not on reason or empirical evidence, but on dogma and dogma alone, by those who also identify as liberal or progressive.
Dogma is defined as: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. AND
-…arguments tantamount to sophistry, are counter to what it means to be a humanist, …
On each of the above points, I addressed your assertion.
Firstly by having a “measure” of life (7 characteristics); addressed your first claim that at conception it was “life” and should be valued the same as “after birth” (ie morning after pill)… and YOUR main argument of “her body, her choice” which you claimed as dogma (it has empirical evidence that her body is the host of a developing fetus) AND claim that it was lacking “humanitarianism”
HOWEVER, my counter arguments on points or analogies were met with derision or ignored. A few examples:
ME: Then every woman who is making a decision to not be a “natural womb”
-for the cells within that womb that are dividing and multiplying and organizing
-that cannot “live” outside her body
YOU: repeatedly, ad nauseum “what makes it “her body, her choice”
(unless you are still clinging to the straw man that women and men believe the fetus is her body)
IGNORED: analogy to “life support” situations eg. Family deciding for loved one; quality of “life” which is the motive behind “humanism” or being “humane” (“life’s not fair” was as close as I got to a response); dismissive of legal systems which do effect humans and why they reached their conclusions for certain “laws” or “rights”… ignoring that the fetus has no human rights in Canada until outside the womb - this line of reasoning was “dismissed” … as was my using nature (as we are evolved animals) and abortion, infanticide being used by women regardless of legality for unwanted pregnancy. My question whether a man can have the “say” to abort the fetus (as you claim he should have a say) BUT didn’t address alternatives for men to address unwanted fatherhood and/or fatherhood. Oh, and the “cognitive/conscious experience of developing fetus” (YOU The child can experience events inside the womb independent of the mother…) AND “erring on the side of life” as fully measured by life “characteristics”
NOW misogyny …
YOU said “woman could simply choose not to get pregnant at all”
Uh, huh… (I pointed out that men could choose not to impregnate her) This PART you did not include in your statement- implying, “it’s her fault she’s pregnant, now she should just deal with it - it’s not “her body” so it shouldn’t be “her choice”
Tied terminating pregnancy (by not getting pregnant) to “thereby have no problem at all with any hobby or career she chooses. ”
As though this reason is the most “popular” for a woman to “not get pregnant” or “terminate” a pregnancy. Working outside of the “home” or our “little” hobbies bother you?
Equating a developing fetus to a full grown woman and “slipping” in calling the fetus a “child”(Post 55)… implies you see women on par with a fetus
dependant, reactive, non-thinking
Do you equate men to a fetus?
You wanted to also “redefine” the environment of the child - remove symbolically “the fetus from the womb” to try to further YOUR point. Sorry but a woman’s womb IS the environment. Again, a slam on her body. Whenever I mention her female anatomy WHICH is the issue and cannot be “set aside” your response was “splitting hairs here. So I do not want to get bogged down on this.” EXCEPT when YOU argue to “use” this to “fully develop an unwanted pregnancy” AS it (fetus) is “not her body” (edit to clarify: use the womb)
In response to laws changing, first for women, then “children” (labor laws), racial issues and gays … your response was:
gender also is not authority…i mean if a room full of male obstetricians told you one thing and some random woman from wal-mart told you another…who are you going to listen to?
WTF??? Weird statement- I’ve advocated that abortion is between a woman and her physician
AND I have not advocated for making abortion illegal. SO you have just been advocating for a man to determine what happens in a woman’s womb.
AND the last comment… “ I do not want to see you combative side, I want to see the side of you that will debate in good faith and not make baseless accusations, she was there for the start, bring her back.”. (If you don’t see the issue in this - lol, my observation ‘stands’)
MORE than enough from your “mouth” so-to-speak to demonstrate my use of misogyny.
So to repeat:
I ended with this before my “goodnight”…
I read your thoughts on politics and it stood out to me that you would defend “freedom of religion” and protect “free speech” (which I agree) -
HOWEVER
Ethically, I take issue with you on the fact that religion has done more harm to human lives (emotional, sexual and physical) AND caused the death of people (suicide, war) - YET in principle, you would none the less defend this choice of freedom of religion. Life isn’t fair for those caught in the dark side of religious institutions/cults.
BUT when it comes to a WOMAN’S choice, her body, you take issue with the “value of life” and want to restrict her. (adding “use her womb - disregard the person”)
Your ethical ideals of equality and principles are biased and as many a male poster pointed out, misogynistic.