ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

[HAL9000]

Of course he HAS children, 2 in fact. He never HAD children. That only a woman can do.

Your arguments are acting like fathers take some active part in gestating a child. They do not.

So if you were to die, the father that currently has children would change to a past tense, and the past tense of has is had. Therefore your father would have had children.

Had != Given birth to.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

dude is 33. she is 17. Technically that is statutory rape. (yes, I do not agree that it is the same as fullblown rape),

but, supposedly, she did not consent to unprotected sex.
also, the girl is disabled.
she had a miscarriage. no abortion

dude is a fucking piece of shit.

point being: ANYONE who sees this as some sort of vehicle for a man's rights is a FUCKING NUTJOB.

Her FRIENDS say she had a miscarriage, and 17 is not statutory rape.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You choose the mother if the foetus WILL kill her obviously.

You dodged the point.
Your argument relies on what something might become. But a fertilized egg does not automatically become a child it has several other options it can become, including a deadly medical condition.
I could just as easily make the argument that a fertilized egg might eventually become a deadly medical condition, so I should treat is as such now.
When your logic can be used to make many diffrent conclusions then the logic does not follow.

 

[HAL9000]

You dodged the point.
Your argument relies on what something might become. But a fertilized egg does not automatically become a child it has several other options it can become, including a deadly medical condition.
I could just as easily make the argument that a fertilized egg might eventually become a deadly medical condition, so I should treat is as such now.
When your logic can be used to make many diffrent conclusions then the logic does not follow.

Statistically it is far more likely to become a child than a deadly medical condition.

I didn't say it will absolutely become a child, I said it is potentially a child. When something has the potential for life that should be respected. Like an adult hooked up to a life support machine.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Statistically it is far more likely to become a child than a deadly medical condition.

Statistically it is much more likely to be rejected by the mother’s body and reabsorbed as useless material. Let’s just treat it like that.

I didn't say it will absolutely become a child, I said it is potentially a child. When something has the potential for life that should be respected. Like an adult hooked up to a life support machine.

No, potential for life does not deserve respect. Life deserves respect. Lots of things have the potential of life, every time I masturbate that had the potential for life, I don't give it much respect.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So human beings have no potential?

Nowhere did I say that.

Morality is not based on potential? Well it is.

LOL @ you for arguing "moral facts." :biggrin:

I seriously was.

Bullshit.

 

[TheVrolok]

We're not talking about children. We're talking about fetuses, and fetuses are as much "potential children" as you and I are "potential corpses."

In other words, you response was meaningless.

I would agree with those statements a vast majority of the time, and also in regard to the case in the OP; however, you're not entirely correct. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 does indeed recognize a fetus as a human child insofar as any violent action leading to injury or death is punishable just as if it were inflected upon the mother. Of course, even this law provides for an exception when it comes to lawful abortion. Just another example of how law may not always be consistent in it's purview.

 

[HAL9000]

Statistically it is much more likely to be rejected by the mother’s body and reabsorbed as useless material. Let’s just treat it like that.

Very true, but when one of the potential outcomes is a child, that deserves respect. Just like a human being on life support. Statistically they may be likely to die, but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

 

[HAL9000]

Nowhere did I say that.


LOL @ you for arguing "moral facts." :biggrin:

What moral facts?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL! Someone with a philosophy degree would most definitely know that what matters in an argument is not facts, but a premise and a conclusion.

I said facts are all that matter in debate. Please read for comprehension.

an absolute fact is a rare thing and almost impossible to come by.

The only "absolute facts" are tautologies, and tautologies are meaningless.

 

[HAL9000]

I said facts are all that matter in debate. Please read for comprehension.


The only "absolute facts" are tautologies, and tautologies are meaningless.

Facts are not all that matter in debates.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Statistically it is far more likely to become a child than a deadly medical condition.

I didn't say it will absolutely become a child, I said it is potentially a child. When something has the potential for life that should be respected. Like an adult hooked up to a life support machine.

Don't even bring that bullshit argument into this thread. If I'm ever hooked up to a life machine and need to depend on that for the rest of my life please unplug me.

My Dad died in December, he was on dialysis 3 days a week due to complications from diabetes, his feet were in bad shape and one of them really needed to be removed but he was too weak to survive the surgery. We probably could have kept him alive for months or perhaps longer medically speaking. Sanctity of life my ass.

My sister and I made a decision and stopped dialysis...the only thing that was keeping him alive. He died a week later under heavy sedation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Very true, but when one of the potential outcomes is a child, that deserves respect. Just like a human being on life support. Statistically they may be likely to die, but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

Sorry about my late update, should have known not to edit a message in a fast updating threat.

I don't think life support should be respected, unless there is a significant chance they will recover. In most cases it is nothing but meat being kept from rotting, and deserves to be cut up to help others.

 

[HAL9000]

If I'm ever hooked up to a life machine and need to depend on that for the rest of my life please unplug me.

My Dad died in December, he was on dialysis 3 days a week due to complications from diabetes, his feet were in bad shape and one of them really needed to be removed but he was too weak to survive the surgery. We probably could have kept him alive for months or perhaps longer medically speaking. Sanctity of life my ass.

My sister and I made a decision and stopped dialysis...the only thing that was keeping him alive. He died a week later under heavy sedation.

If your sister wanted to turn his life support off and you didn't should she morally be allowed to?

 

[HAL9000]

Sorry about my late update, should have known not to edit a message in a fast updating threat.

I don't think life support should be respected, unless there is a significant chance they will recover. In most cases it is nothing but meat being kept from rotting, and deserves to be cut up to help others.

Well you and I disagree on that as well.

 

[TheVrolok]

Don't even bring that bullshit argument into this thread. If I'm ever hooked up to a life machine and need to depend on that for the rest of my life please unplug me.

My Dad died in December, he was on dialysis 3 days a week due to complications from diabetes, his feet were in bad shape and one of them really needed to be removed but he was too weak to survive the surgery. We probably could have kept him alive for months or perhaps longer medically speaking. Sanctity of life my ass.

My sister and I made a decision and stopped dialysis...the only thing that was keeping him alive. He died a week later under heavy sedation.

Obviously a tough/emotional decision, but :thumbsup: To be honest, I think the sanctity of life is better upheld if we let those that are lingering in pain go rather than having them continue on with no quality of life.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I still don't see how you can think that it's just her body she is controlling. Oh..forget the child - it's not really that important.

Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling person. Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right inject hormones and waste into another person without that person's consent. Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right to forcibly respirate and nourish themselves from another person's bloodstream without that person's consent.

It's her body, and if she doesn't want it occupied by an unwelcome intruder, she has the unqualified right to evict it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Facts are not all that matter in debates.

False.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well you and I disagree on that as well.

What we disagree on is the definition of human life. I think human life is defined by will. By our ability to think. With out that we are just meat, and deserves no more respect then that.

 

[HAL9000]

Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling person. Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right inject hormones and waste into another person without that person's consent. Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right to forcibly respirate and nourish themselves from another person's bloodstream without that person's consent.

It's her body, and if she doesn't want it occupied by an unwelcome intruder, she has the unqualified right to evict it.

They were willing, she chose to have sex. She knew the potential outcomes. She chose, I'm all for the womans right to chose, just do it when you open your legs.

 

[HAL9000]

What we disagree on is the definition of human life. I think human life is defined by will. By our ability to think. With out that we are just meat, and deserves no more respect then that.

We definitely disagree on that.

 

[TheVrolok]

What we disagree on is the definition of human life. I think human life is defined by will. By our ability to think. With out that we are just meat, and deserves no more respect then that.

Just out of curiosity, could you clarify "to think?" Do you mean simply having the ability to think, or is there a capacity requirement?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What moral facts?

Your supposed "fact" that morality is based on potential. It isn't a fact. Moral statements are not statements of fact in the first place. Facts are descriptive. Moral statements are prescriptive.

Really got the most out of that degree, didn'tcha?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They were willing, she chose to have sex.

Irrelevant. Consent to sex is not consent to become and remain pregnant.

She knew the potential outcomes.

Traffic collisions are potential outcomes of driving on public motorways. Choosing to drive is not consenting to traffic collisions.

She chose, I'm all for the womans right to chose, just do it when you open your legs.

You're pretty dumb.

 

[HAL9000]

Your supposed "fact" that morality is based on potential. It isn't a fact. Moral statements are not statements of fact in the first place. Facts are descriptive. Moral statements are prescriptive.

Really got the most out of that degree, didn'tcha?

Oh ffs you can't read.

My statement that morality is not always based on fact. Was not a moral statement and thus not a moral fact, it was a statement about how people form morality. It was not expressing any morality of it's own. There for while it was a fact, it was not a moral fact. Moral facts don't exist.

Really don't know what you're talking about, do ya?