[Collide]

Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I always find it odd that people will take this stance on abortion, but, unless they're anarchists, they obviously never take this stance on other subjects. "I've got nothing against abolitionists' principles. If they don't want to have a slave, that's fine. The problem is that they're trying to force slave owners to not have that decision. Additionally, even if slavery is banned, there will be illegal slavery, which is far more dangerous." Insert whatever other illegal activity you want in there: pedophilia, kidnapping, rape. Yes, they are trying to make abortion illegal because it allows people to kill other humans. So unless you're just a total anarchist and think everything, even murder, should be legal, please drop that argument.

Do you really find this odd? If so, then you need to do a serious exercise at thinking from a different perspective. The obvious difference here is the defining point of a human. If you thought that fetuses weren't human until born wouldn't you come up with the same conclusion?

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, if you insert other equivalent activities into that statement, it clearly doesn't work. That was my point. If an argument/POV can't work in any other context, it can't really work in the original context, either.

Well, since according to you changing one word can never change the truth value of something, and two statements that always have the same truth value are equivalent, this'll be equivalent to:

	Blooblequeeblequango, if you insert other equivalent activities into that statement, it clearly doesn't work. That was my point. If an argument/POV can't work in any other context, it can't really work in the original context, either.

And by your logic must have the same truth value. Repeat this process recursively (equivalence is transitive) and we get that your original statement is equivalent to:

Blooblequeeblequango, blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango, blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango. Blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango. Blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango/blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango, blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango blooblequeeblequango, blooblequeeblequango.

Since your statement doesn't make sense "in the new context", the original statement can't have made sense either.

To summarise, your argument only makes even the slightest bit of sense if the full human status of a foetus at any stage of development isn't in dispute. And it's not so much a matter of the specific topic at hand as it is that people who don't regard something as unethical will support others being able to do it, whereas those who do regard it as unethical won't. There's no inconsistency here.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Speaking out against anti-abortion bills on the floor, Brown said “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina,” she said on the House floor. 'But no means no.'"

I'm thinking this isn't specifically the word "vagina", but rather the vulgar nature to which she refers to it. She isn't making a technical medical reference, but rather making a crude sexual reference in a forum which has rules about its decorum.

She's effectively turned herself into Howard Stern on the floor of the legislature. That's simply inappropriate.

[Arcanist]

And why is she allowing herself to be silenced? That's the problem with Americans.You're all too fat, cowardly and really unwilling to take any sort of principled stand because it might negatively impact your pathetic middle class lives.

[Melchizedek]

	Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, it can. Because the context is what matters. Abortion is an issue of personal rights vs ethical views. Everything you listed is not -- it's just illegal. I mentioned baseball because it is legal, which abortion also is. So baseball makes more contextual sense than whatever you put in.

Actually, everything that's illegal is a matter of personal rights vs ethical views. The obvious flaw in your logic is that it isn't even internally consistent. According to you, your argument wouldn't have worked 40 years ago when abortion was illegal. As if it's legality somehow changes its nature.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And why is she allowing herself to be silenced? That's the problem with Americans.You're all too fat, cowardly and really unwilling to take any sort of principled stand because it might negatively impact your pathetic middle class lives.

Politics (in any arena) is a delicate game. She did take a stand, and the rest of the congress decided to ignore her, furthermore they actually removed some of her power.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Politics (in any arena) is a delicate game. She did take a stand, and the rest of the congress decided to ignore her, furthermore they actually removed some of her power.

It wasn't enough. I would have stayed at the podium until they carried me out, all whilst calling them out on their religious bigotry and hypocrisy. Hell, if they touched me I probably would have fought them. She allowed herself to be silenced by meekly walking away and not fighting back.

That's the problem. You people only do what's easy, with your slavish devotion to teh rulez.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It wasn't enough. I would have stayed at the podium until they carried me out, all whilst calling them out on their religious bigotry and hypocrisy. Hell, if they touched me I probably would have fought them. She allowed herself to be silenced by meekly walking away and not fighting back. That's the problem. You people only do what's easy, with your slavish devotion to teh rulez.

Yeah, because the only groups that maintain a decorum with respect to speaking are religion folks.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, because the only groups that maintain a decorum with respect to speaking are religion folks.

Religious bigots who see women as second class citizens don't deserve any sort of decorum.

[Noelle]

And they are trying to convince women they aren't waging war on them during an election year. I think the repubs put themselves in a lose-lose situation with this one.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, everything that's illegal is a matter of personal rights vs ethical views. The obvious flaw in your logic is that it isn't even internally consistent. According to you, your argument wouldn't have worked 40 years ago when abortion was illegal. As if it's legality somehow changes its nature.

Oh really? Like making an change to structures on your property without paying the extortion to the state? Like driving on the roadways without paying the license tax? etc.

Not all illegal things are illegal due to a form of ethics.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh really? Like making an change to structures on your property without paying the extortion to the state? Like driving on the roadways without paying the license tax? etc. Not all illegal things are illegal due to a form of ethics.

Really? So you think it's ethical to utilize these things (fire dept, homeowners insurance, in the case of building codes) (roadways, bridges, vehicle insurance in the case of license and registration) without paying anything? Even though these things obviously cannot be provided at no cost.

That's pretty weak.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Really? So you think it's ethical to utilize these things (fire dept, homeowners insurance, in the case of building codes) (roadways, bridges, vehicle insurance in the case of license and registration) without paying anything? Even though these things obviously cannot be provided at no cost. That's pretty weak.

Who said I wanted a fire dept? It's not ethical to force them. Re insurances, that's rentseeking, and offsetting costs on nonpurchasers, in regards to standards enforcement. Roadways are supposed to be covered under gas taxes, not drivers licensing fees. Licenses don't ensure bad drivers aren't behind the wheel, and don't keep the unlicensed from behind the wheel (just like they don't ensure good work is done under a license, or that unlicensed work isn't done). It's a bureaucratic feeding trough with no ethical foundation.

[Melchizedek]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh really? Like making an change to structures on your property without paying the extortion to the state? Like driving on the roadways without paying the license tax? etc. Not all illegal things are illegal due to a form of ethics.

Yes, taxation is also a matter of ethics. Clearly you think both of those things are unethical, so you prove my point.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, taxation is also a matter of ethics. Clearly you think both of those things are unethical, so you prove my point.

You said personal rights vs ethical views. Ethics and personal rights are intertwined, since there is no ethical defense for invasions of personal rights. So its ethics vs the state. Personal rights vs the state.

[thod]

There are plenty of ethical defences of invasion of personal rights. The most obvious is a dispute that a claimed right exists in the first place.

The problem with the individualist theory is that it rest on the assumption that the best possible society spontaneously emerges from the maximisation of individual liberty. This has been proven false by history. The most successful societies are always cooperative. No individual can stand against an alliance and must ally himself. All such alliances require sacrifices be made and individual liberties restricted for the good of the group. The competition has always been between groups.

[Vagrant]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are plenty of ethical defences of invasion of personal rights. The most obvious is a dispute that a claimed right exists in the first place. The problem with the individualist theory is that it rest on the assumption that the best possible society spontaneously emerges from the maximisation of individual liberty. This has been proven false by history. The most successful societies are always cooperative. No individual can stand against an alliance and must ally himself. All such alliances require sacrifices be made and individual liberties restricted for the good of the group. The competition has always been between groups.

Could you explain what exactly you're supporting with this statement?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Religious bigots who see women as second class citizens don't deserve any sort of decorum.

Anti-religion bigots who see Christians as second class citizens don't deserve any sort of decorum, either.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anti-religion bigots who see Christians as second class citizens don't deserve any sort of decorum, either.

It's not "anti-religion" to request that you stop trying to legislate your faith. No one is telling you what to believe or talking about shutting down churches, just that you have the good taste to keep it to yourself.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not "anti-religion" to request that you stop trying to legislate your faith. No one is telling you what to believe or talking about shutting down churches, just that you have the good taste to keep it to yourself.

No one is suggesting that these women shut down their vaginas, either,.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No one is suggesting that these women shut down their vaginas, either,.

No, but you people are attempting to tell them what they can and can not do with their property(their bodies, which includes the fetus). Really, TMM. No one is interested in your stone age morality.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, but you people are attempting to tell them what they can and can not do with their property(their bodies, which includes the fetus).

You apparently need a biology lesson. The fetus is genetically distinct from the mother, and thus cannot be part of the woman's body.

Furthermore, a woman's body isn't property. Our law makes a hard and clear distinction between person and property. That's why slavery is illegal and companies can't put a lien on your kidneys to repay a debt.

So, I'd suggest getting an education before trying again.

	Really, TMM. No one is interested in your stone age morality.

Yeah, 'cause more than half the USA isn't pro-life.. oh.. wait....

[Arcanist]

Maybe you should go learn about the concept of self-ownership.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You apparently need a biology lesson. The fetus is genetically distinct from the mother, and thus cannot be part of the woman's body.

If the fetus cannot be "part of the woman's body," then why should you have any objection to her making that observation a concrete reality through the complete separation of the two?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the fetus cannot be "part of the woman's body," then why should you have any objection to her making that observation a concrete reality through the complete separation of the two?

As long as she does so without harming the fetus in the process, she can go for it.