has anybody ever been involved with an abortion?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Why? There is plenty of completely insignificant and worthless life out there. Why should we give it "respect" just because its alive? Simply being alive doesn't necessarily give something more value than an inanimate object. My skin cells are alive, but I certainly don't shed a tear when one dies. And the bacteria that made me sick the other day, they can go fuck themselves.

Fair point, but I would say in response:

Human life> Animal life> Cellular life... etc.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
The whole "her body" argument is stupid. The kid's body is NOT her body.
Who has said that it is? Are you imagining things or do you simply fail to understand the principle of bodily integrity vis a vis abortion?

Nobody has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against her will. Nobody has the unqualified right to sustain himself or herself by forcibly drawing upon the vital resources of another person's body, nor does anyone have an unqualified right to inject a person's body with hormones and waste. It's her body, and if any of those violations are perpetrated upon her, she has an unlimited right to seek relief from them.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I agree, but now you've made enemies with the animal lovers.

I'm ok with it...

Who has said that it is? Are you imagining things or do you simply fail to understand the principle of bodily integrity vis a vis abortion?

Nobody has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against her will. Nobody has the unqualified right to sustain himself or herself by forcibly drawing upon the vital resources of another person's body, nor does anyone have an unqualified right to inject a person's body with hormones and waste. It's her body, and if any of those violations are perpetrated upon her, she has an unlimited right to seek relief from them.

Violations... Forcibly... inject...

It's a choice to have sex, do the crime do the time. People know that having sex gets you pregnant, afterwards you can't complain that the baby is forcibly violating you by sucking your vital resources without consent, you gave consent when you had sex.

Unless you were raped.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Sorry your on my ignore list, can't remember why.
Probably because you're a petulant ignoramus that doesn't like to be shown how wrong he is, and would instead prefer to shut your eyes and clamp your hands over your ears than confront the facts.

I don't think she should be forced to terminate, I also don't think that the father should be able to force her to either.
So fucking what? That isn't the position I had assailed.

Because you chose to have sex, that's a choice, theres a risk you could get preganant, it's a risk everyone knows, if you aren't prepared to put up with the result, don't do it... The woman chose to take the risk, she should accept the consequences, the father should not be forced to either lose a child, and neither should she be forced to abort.
In the United States, duties are only owed to other persons, and duties are only conferred as a consequence of negligence. Seeing as 1.) the fetus does not exist when she has sex and 2.) having sex is not negligent, your argument is a load of bollocks.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
It's a choice to have sex, do the crime do the time. People know that having sex gets you pregnant, afterwards you can't complain that the baby is forcibly violating you by sucking your vital resources without consent, you gave consent when you had sex.
In what fucked up universe is consensual sex a crime, jackass? Jesus fucking Christ you're just spouting off and yet you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Fuck off.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Probably because you're a petulant ignoramus that doesn't like to be shown how wrong he is, and would instead prefer to shut your eyes and clamp your hands over your ears than confront the facts.
Now I remember why you're on my ignore list. Particularly seeing as you don't provide "the facts"
In the United States, duties are only owed to other persons, and duties are only conferred as a consequence of negligence. Seeing as 1.) the fetus does not exist when she has sex and 2.) having sex is not negligent, your argument is a load of bollocks.

In the rest of the world if you do something which causes something else to happen, it's your fault.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
In what fucked up universe is consensual sex a crime, jackass? Jesus fucking Christ you're just spouting off and yet you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Fuck off.

I didn't say it was a crime, that was a turn of phrase, If you have sex then you are responsible for the consequences.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Now I remember why you're on my ignore list. Particularly seeing as you don't provide "the facts"
You're invited to demonstrate that anything I have said is false.


In the rest of the world if you do something which causes something else to happen, it's your fault.
Nobody is harmed as a consequence of consensual sex, so no duty is owed to anyone as a consequence. As Kadarin said, you're simply trying to find a way to punish a woman for having sex, because you think sex is bad.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
I didn't say it was a crime, that was a turn of phrase
Bullshit. You quite explicitly analogized sex with crime, and the same reasons why your analogy is false falsify your explicit argument.

If you have sex then you are responsible for the consequences.
No duty is owed to persons that do not exist when sex happens. Nothing about sex is negligent. These are the facts that falsify your argument. Shove them up your dimwitted arse.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
You're invited to demonstrate that anything I have said is false.
You said that I clamp my hands over my ears, rather than listen to the truth, well I'm here listening. Therefore your statement was false.


Nobody is harmed as a consequence of consensual sex, so no duty is owed to anyone as a consequence. As Kadarin said, you're simply trying to find a way to punish a woman for having sex, because you think sex is bad.

Someone is evidently harmed if you think that being pregnant is negative...
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Bullshit. You quite explicitly analogized sex with crime, and the same reasons why your analogy is false falsify your explicit argument.

Because you didn't like the analogy of the common phrase "Do the crime do the time" my entire argument is false :rolleyes:
No duty is owed to persons that do not exist when sex happens. Nothing about sex is negligent. These are the facts that falsify your argument. Shove them up your dimwitted arse.

No the duty is owed to the father, not to abort their potential offspring.
 

erikistired

Diamond Member
Sep 27, 2000
9,739
0
0
Nobody is harmed as a consequence of consensual sex, so no duty is owed to anyone as a consequence. As Kadarin said, you're simply trying to find a way to punish a woman for having sex, because you think sex is bad.

these days quite often a child is harmed when some airhead gets knocked up and decides to bring the child into this world and then completely fucks up raising it.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Because you didn't like the analogy of the common phrase "Do the crime do the time" my entire argument is false :rolleyes:
You fail at reading english.


No the duty is owed to the father, not to abort their potential offspring.
She owes no such duty, because she is not guilty of any negligence. You are still simply spruiking from your probably very enormous ass.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
You said that I clamp my hands over my ears, rather than listen to the truth, well I'm here listening. Therefore your statement was false.
I said that it likely why I wound up on your ignore list to begin with, and it would appear that my statement was quite correct.




Someone is evidently harmed if you think that being pregnant is negative...
The mother's rights are certainly violated, and the fetus remains only under the extension of her provisional consent. This has absolutely fuck-all to do with your argument, however.

Keep in mind that even when negligence is demonstrated, the legal recourse is to restore the status quo ante. Do you have the wits to reason out what the status quo ante is for a fetus that didn't exist before conception? Here's a hint: abortion accomplishes precisely this.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
15
81
Because you didn't like the analogy of the common phrase "Do the crime do the time" my entire argument is false :rolleyes:

There is so much fail in your posts that I find it hard to believe you can use the internet without help from an adult.

"Do the crime, do the time" basically means that if you do something legally or morally wrong (i.e. "crime"), you must suffer punishment or do penance (i.e. the "time"). To use this as an analogy for sex and procreation, you on some level consider sex to be a bad thing or else you would have chosen another analogy. Or perhaps you simply lack the sophistication to think of this subject with anything more complex than talking points that were fed to you somewhere along the way?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I said that it likely why I wound up on your ignore list to begin with, and it would appear that my statement was quite correct.

You wound up on my ignore list for insults.

The mother's rights are certainly violated, and the fetus remains only under the extension of her provisional consent. This has absolutely fuck-all to do with your argument, however.
No they aren;t she had sex she lives with the consequences.

Keep in mind that even when negligence is demonstrated, the legal recourse is to restore the status quo ante. Do you have the wits to reason out what the status quo ante is for a fetus that didn't exist before conception? Here's a hint: abortion accomplishes precisely this.

There's no negligence.. So I don't know what this is all about. If you have sex you could get pregnant, if you do it's your fault (both partners) no one else's.

You fail at reading english.

She owes no such duty, because she is not guilty of any negligence. You are still simply spruiking from your probably very enormous ass.

There's no negligence.. So I don't know what this is all about. If you have sex you could get pregnant, if you do it's your fault (both partners) no one else's.

There is so much fail in your posts that I find it hard to believe you can use the internet without help from an adult.

"Do the crime, do the time" basically means that if you do something legally or morally wrong (i.e. "crime"), you must suffer punishment or do penance (i.e. the "time"). To use this as an analogy for sex and procreation, you on some level consider sex to be a bad thing or else you would have chosen another analogy. Or perhaps you simply lack the sophistication to think of this subject with anything more complex than talking points that were fed to you somewhere along the way?

No not really all I meant by it is if you do the initial act you live with the consequences. Sex is an awesome thing, everyone should do it alot, but if you get someone pregnant live with it.

On a side note. People! If you want to debate i'm all for it, if you want to throw insults at me, fuck off, try and debate with a clear head without just making childish insults after I reply, I'm trying to respect your opinions, respect mine. If you want to insult me, the PM me and i'll tell you what I think of you in return.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
You wound up on my ignore list for insults.
You earned them.

No they aren;t she had sex she lives with the consequences.
This is simply false -- as false as if you'd stated that Edinburgh was the capitol of France. It isn't a matter of erroneous deduction, but of ignorance on your part. I've already enumerated the violations intrinsic in pregnancy, so we can only presume your ignorance is wanton. That, or you have a learning disability. Or you are dishonest. That covers the bases, I think.


There's no negligence.. So I don't know what this is all about. If you have sex you could get pregnant, if you do it's your fault (both partners) no one else's.
No negligence = no owed duty.

If you drive in a motor car you could encounter a collision, but it is not automatically "your fault" for choosing to drive said car. Your reasoning fails.

No not really all I meant by it is if you do the initial act you live with the consequences. Sex is an awesome thing, everyone should do it alot, but if you get someone pregnant live with it.
This is inconsistent with well established legal principles -- ones of which you are obviously ignorant.

On a side note. People! If you want to debate i'm all for it, if you want to throw insults at me, fuck off, try and debate with a clear head without just making childish insults after I reply, I'm trying to respect your opinions, respect mine. If you want to insult me, the PM me and i'll tell you what I think of you in return.
I don't give a fuck about your opinions. You are factually wrong, and your refusal to correct your errors earns you the disrespect you deserve.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I'm a moron
True.

This is simply false -- as false as if you'd stated that Edinburgh was the capitol of France. It isn't a matter of erroneous deduction, but of ignorance on your part. I've already enumerated the violations intrinsic in pregnancy, so we can only presume your ignorance is wanton. That, or you have a learning disability. Or you are dishonest. That covers the bases, I think.

No you haven't covered the base that if you do something you are responsible for the result, if you have sex and get an STD it's no one else fault but yours. Or is it, perhaps you've got some legal precident for me that proves STDs are the will of the gods, and you are not legaly responsible for it?

No negligence = no owed duty.

If you drive in a motor car you could encounter a collision, but it is not automatically "your fault" for choosing to drive said car. Your reasoning fails.

If you have an accident in a car you know that there is a chance you could have an accident, whether you immediately caused it or not you have to live with the consequences, you can't just walk away and shrug, not my fault.

This is inconsistent with well established legal principles -- ones of which you are obviously ignorant.
.

I wasn't talking about legality, I was talking about ethics.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
As dishonest as I already thought you were.



No you haven't covered the base that if you do something you are responsible for the result
Because this is false. I've already explained it. You are only expected to avoid acting negligently. A person is not culpable for consequences of actions which are not negligent.

if you have sex and get an STD it's no one else fault but yours. Or is it, perhaps you've got some legal precident for me that proves STDs are the will of the gods, and you are not legaly responsible for it?
You seem to think that because a principle is true in one instance it must be true in every instance. Grown ups are able to see that the world does not work that way.



If you have an accident in a car you know that there is a chance you could have an accident, whether you immediately caused it or not you have to live with the consequences, you can't just walk away and shrug, not my fault.
Again, simply factually false. When another driver strikes your car with his, not only is it not your fault, but you don't have to "live with the consequences," but rather you can sue him for his negligence and seek restoration of the status quo ante through compensatory and punitive damages.



I wasn't talking about legality, I was talking about ethics.
The legality is all that matters.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Because this is false. I've already explained it. You are only expected to avoid acting negligently. A person is not culpable for consequences of actions which are not negligent.

So I can do anything I want, causing untold misery as long as you don't class the act "negligent"
You seem to think that because a principle is true in one instance it must be true in every instance. Grown ups are able to see that the world does not work that way.
No I don't but I had to dumb it down so you would understand.

Again, simply factually false. When another driver strikes your car with his, not only is it not your fault, but you don't have to "live with the consequences," but rather you can sue him for his negligence and seek restoration of the status quo ante through compensatory and punitive damages.

The legality is all that matters.

Not when your talking about morality it isn't. And please stop with the latin, it doesn't help your argument this is an issue of ethics, not of legality.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
So I can do anything I want, causing untold misery as long as you don't class the act "negligent"
So long as society doesn't class the act as negligent, yes. Welcome to the free world.

No I don't but I had to dumb it down so you would understand.
Dumb what down? What's the point of stating a singular example if your implicit reasoning isn't that "it's true in this instance, so it's true in every instance"?

Not when your talking about morality it isn't.
Morality is subjective, so it is objectively irrelevant.

And please stop with the latin, it doesn't help your argument this is an issue of ethics, not of legality.
It isn't a problem of my arguments that you lack the sophistication to grasp them.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Morality is subjective, so it is objectively irrelevant.

So you think this entire thread is based on legality?! If so my points are not relevant to you. I'm talking about ethics, IDGAS about the law when making my moral opinions, some things are illegal which are morally acceptable and somethings are legal which are morally wrong. The law is too subjective, based on countries or states or random acts through history, my morality is absolute to me.

It makes sense to me now why you've been saying I'm wrong, I'm not arguing about legal issues, I'm arguing from an ethics stand point, an opinion can't be wrong, when talking about ethics. But a statement can either be correct or incorrect talking about the law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.