>>527
"Belief is worthless. convictions are not acceptable as justification. Reality is probabilistic, not subjective."
You can't talk about human rights while sitting there advocating forcing people to work for or do something that they think is wrong.
People have the right to decide to work or not, or trade or not, and for that matter - they can decide to simply not trade with a certain person for whatever reason.
There is no justification in forcing someone else to work for something that you believe is right, regardless of the fact that they believe it is wrong. It is their property, and their work. They can decide to sell it or not. They don't have to.
"If he wants to have a say about abortions, he signs himself up for 50 % of parenting or child support if he decides to am-scray. That is logical."
Yep. I'm fairly sure we see eye to eye here. But the facts are, we have child support laws *now*, so until they are abolished, he has a say in abortions, since the decision was already made *for* him. If he has responsibilities to the being, its part his, and that means no killing it without his consent.
"Waiting is not the issue, availability and a slew of other factors apply. Life in America isn't easy."
And I thought we saw eye to eye here. I don't give a fuck if she had to drive a hundred miles to an abortion clinic or not, that's too bad. If she wanted an abortion, she should have gotten it before the fetus became a human life (late stage abortions are wrong, remember?) She's had plenty of time at this point, and you have said so yourself.
"Life prerequires control of one's body, including add-ons to it. Void this and you void life."
But is consciousness life? If so, what if you had a human who was conscious, yet somehow unable to control his body for some reason? He is still 'alive'. Also, women control whether or not such growths begin in the first place, so one could say that the 'control' existed at that point and time.
"I've already explained that due to the universalizability maxim, the human rights are a diamond grid that can not function if one is favored above the others."
And the grid cannot exist at all without the base of said grid - the right to life. Thus, while it is a terrible decision to have to make, it must be made, and the right to life supercedes the others.
"Since human life is cast-iron in the women and dubious at best for a long time in the fetuses, the women win ethically up til a certain point."
Right. I'm not saying 'ban all abortions,' I'm saying 'ban/restrict late term abortions'. I was under the impression that you agreed with me on this. Is this wrong?
"Social conservatism and religion causes amorally late abortions, not feminism."
No it doesn't, lazy bitches who screw around and wait 9 months to get an abortion cause ammorally late abortions.
"I've stated that, yes. What I find to be alarming is that most pro-lifers think that these 15500 deaths is justification for removing the right to own one's cancers from half of America."
Not all women are dumb enough to let the 'cancer' get there in the first place. The vast majority know to use contraceptives.
I was the pro-lifer who mentioned that figure, and I never said it is a justification for removing the rights to all abortions, with the sole exception of a hypothetical scenario you offered, which really doesn't matter anyway, since it has no basis in reality anyway.
I used the figure to point out that there are simply too god damn many late term abortions right now, and there is obviously a problem here. I doubt all of those occur due to *serious* medical reasons, and the laws need to be tightened I think. That is *it*. I am not advocating a complete ban on abortions, mmk?
"The right to body = Right to property = Right to life."
A decent argument. Since that is your opinion, naturally you will stand with me against socialized medicine, social security, the FDA, the BATFE, and all the other unnecessary government organizations that violate the right to property? This means incremental removal of said programs, in favor of individualism and property rights, if you are wondering.
"You've said that a complete ban is preferrable to no-limits abortioning, if you had to make the choice. I consider this unacceptable."
Firstly, I consider it redundant since it was a hypothetical situation with no basis in reality to begin with.
And secondly, my grandfather, a chemist, had chemotherapy for a cancer he had, and I don't see why the treatment should be banned. I don't see how chemotherapy as an overall practice relates to abortion.
"Unfortunately, I don't believe mercantile laws work everywhere."
Singing a different tune here than you were above, when you were talking about the oh-so-sacred property rights to ones own body. If you violate property rights for socialized medicine and social security, you are chipping away at property rights, and that includes the right to ones body, which, as you pointed out earlier, is closely related to abortion. If you are going to be inconsistent in your support of property rights, then naturally you can't critisize me for doing the same. That would be hypocritical.
"Huh? I don't."
Yes you do. 'Collective responsibility!', you claim. You said it in response to my saying that the fetus was innocent, if I'm not mistaken, and I interpret this to mean that you somehow think the fetus is responsible for the state of things as well (and is thus not innocent, somehow).
"No, the analogy was not applicable, since there is a time period that you didn't introduce."
This fails for irrelevancy.
"Culture, gender and phenotype are partial determinants of behavior. They must be addressed."
No, environmental determinism as a theory is clouded with a good degree of doubt at best. Again, if it was true, and individuals were composed entirely of experiances taken in from their surroundings, then groups of individuals who grew up in more or less similar environments would naturally grow up to become more or less similar people, which was not always the case. Clearly, one's success or failure is *not* blamable on environmental determinism, but blamable upon individual choices.
"You mean that anecdote about you learning by yourself? One individual case? We are what we experience."
Not just one individual case, *many* individual cases. You not only offer no proof for your idea, but historically, it doesn't hold up.