Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

elsdfr

Core Member
  • Content count

    8,029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About elsdfr

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    entp

Converted

  • Gender
  1. It doesn't have to be acceptable, just as you can say you can think drug laws are not acceptable, that itself does not justify an objection to them. To simply say abortions should be solely a females choice because you don't think the Government should moralize doesn't make any sense because laws in essence govern what a society does and does not consider to be morally or socially acceptable. For example public sex; public urination; incest; underage sex, and things like these are often legally enforced in order to maintain an acceptable form of social morality. Gay rights, etc, are on behalf of consenting adults. Whereas an unborn child cannot consent to being killed therefore it deserves special legal protections - and it gets those through 'fetal rights' - Fetal rights are moral rights or legal rights of human fetuses under natural and civil law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights Euthanasia is not a crime everywhere in the world and it is legal in some states of the US. Morally, why can a consenting adult at the end of their life not be allowed to go through with it? Yet on the other hand a non-consenting unborn child can be killed maybe even one week prior to birth? It simply doesn't follow.
  2. Many men are slaves to the hierarchy. To be part of it you must cope regardless of what is pushed down on you. If you show signs of weakness or indifference then clearly you are not cut out for 'it', and you are given a place. Think of navy seals and corporate types as being the the prime example of this. Various forms of it can be seen in the common man as well as they learn and react to it.
  3. Maybe try meditating or breathing exercises.
  4. Its a known and current thing that the government enforces morals on a society. It's laughable to suggest that they don't and even more so to make some cop-out argument where you simply claim the government should not have an influence on the rights of an unborn child, therefore you can abort a child at any age in the womb. Because I guess you are probably basing it on some sort of libertarian ideal. It has no foundation in a considered ethical justification for the rights on the un-born V those of the mother. Here's another one for you: Euthanasia. Damn gubbermint getting in the way of peoples 'right' to kill themselves peacefully...You cannot often kill yourself 'legally' so why should a mother always - and regardless - be allowed to kill a healthy child that has a whole life to live?
  5. An opinion might be: people with brown hair are good looking. Or, the sky is red... it's a subjective value judgement. Whereas a normative ethical judgement regarding abortion is in response to: the rights; responsibilities and the consequences to all people. I gave immunizations and road rules as examples of: Holiman: "Using the government to enforce those opinions is even worse." -- If the government enforcing "opinions" is the best argument you have for being pro-abortion (at any stage of development?), then I don't think you have much. Not that much different to, "the females rights trump all the rights of the unborn child." And we've seen how shaky that is.
  6. Killing something that is alive is not simply someones opinion, it's a normative ethical judgement that needs to address rights; responsibilities and consequences. What do you think of immunization? Do you stop at all stop lights, or just some? Can you leave your country without a passport?
  7. It's just a form of self identification via a group. People can call themselves all kinds of things but are they really that? "I am this, I am that".. It doesn't really say much of the person other than they are probably insecure in their own personal identity.
  8. Yeah, it's easier than I thought, way too easy even. The liquid diet was much more taxing, mentally.. Probably because of the sugar. Rice cakes and carrots. I didn't think of that but I have some now. It certainly staves off the mid-morning stomach aches. That first one was killer, but it only lasted 20 minutes. I think the control aspect of it is interesting. When so much is chaos and uncontrollable its nice to be able to control what I consume.
  9. Alive in the sense that it can survive without the mother, but with the help of science? Or maybe even it could survive without the mother and without science? That stage of development is where I have defended its rights and considerations beyond those of just the mother (as we know them now). Human? Homosapian? Considering prior to 8 weeks it is not a fetus, then up to 22 weeks (which is apparently the medical consensus), then I think termination in that window (8-22) also raises ethical concerns on the part of the developing baby (as well as the mother).
  10. So some guys will pretend in order to be part of the group in order to get laid? Wow, kinda creepy.
  11. But you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise you are no better than the lady in the article who gave birth to a child and then threw it out the window. As I have mentioned, just because a 7 month old baby is inside a female does not give her the right to be judge, jury and executioner of something that is potentially no different to a born, two month old. There are drugs, spinal taps and c-sections. I'm not saying its pain or risk free but they are hardly giving birth unassisted on the kitchen floor. An abortion can be one of the most psychologically damaging things that someone might go through, the results of which compound with the length of term and the effects of it might last a life-time. If a child is two days from birth then it is no different to an alive baby. So just because the child is inside the womb does not mean it cannot survive on its own. Therefore it deserves rights. Your argument gives that child no rights. To you it's nothing more than a baby male chicken that someone throws into the meat grinder. A fetus at 10 weeks plus has a developing central nervous system. If you take it out and do what ever they do to it, it will feel pain. You need to take your feminist blinkers off and consider the consequence to others in order to understand.
  12. Does your profile give off the, 'I want to have kids right now!' vibe? (going by the title)
  13. Even to abort a healthy child at seven months of pregnancy? Fact is if any female was to suggest this their right the reaction would not be: do as they wish. Me myself, I don't see anything under 8 weeks being a major issue (debatable, I know). Anytime after this then as I mentioned I think it raises serious concerns over not only the circumstances of the mother - who might not be able feed or raise a child (it's demanding and expensive) - but for the developing fetus as well, as the standard method for abortions is archaic, cruel and unusual. Your 'female rights trumps all conditions' is absolute. But as has been pointed out a number of times by myself and others it doesn't really float. Only to finally have it pointed out that the 'ownership' argument is tantamount to arguing for a form of slavery. I must admit I was going to bring up the slavery aspect of the 'ownership' argument but stepped around it (figure it would attract the race-baiters, but maybe not)...Not that it matters a whole lot. Really, you can believe what you like, you can argue a point how you like, but really it's not what the OP requested as really you are just defending her position. Others opined alternatives and counter-arguments so if she wants to take from those what she will, then so be it, other than that.. *shrug* http://www.dailywire.com/news/9674/teen-charged-murder-after-killing-her-2-pound-amanda-prestigiacomo Lopez was charged with murder: one count of felony child abuse resulting in death. But all she really had to do was ask to have her baby murdered while she was still in her womb.
  14. @ischulte @Seablue For your sake let me repeat myself ischulte. An embryo is not a fetus, which is not a developing baby, which is not a five year old child - There are clear and distinct differences between them all, this much should be obvious. The female ownership claim I guess comes from feminist ideology, in that the female 'owns' her body therefore she is responsible for the decisions and that includes (apparently) everything to do with birth and abortion. But this assumes a female is then a law unto herself when it comes to birth rights and suggests that regardless of consequences to others, her choices trump all others, when the reality is that it is not that simple as the suffering of others also needs to be considered. Say a growing baby is now twenty weeks developed. As a 'being' it can be seen to react and respond to things just as a real 'alive' baby might, it could very well survive without being in the womb, so obviously aborting it at this stage can be seen as akin to killing a one month old child that has been born, as there is essentially no difference between the two. Yet you want to suggest that just because it is inside a women she can do what she likes, at any stage.. then why does this ownership suddenly stop once it is outside? What is different? Nothing is. However, this is not so at the early 4-8 week stages, it is not human and will not suffer as an equal being might as a result of being terminated.
  15. Sure I can and I already have. Well, can you legally sell yourself to someone? Ownership implies property, if someone is their own property and everything within and on it is their own, then why can they not sell themselves? They can to an extent, but these rights are limited and there are laws against it, so in effect you have limited ownership over your body. Yes, I agree. But you seem to be missing my point though, which was that this is what the average anti-abortionist might suggest.