NationStates Jolt Archive

the funny thing is that, pro-lifers say the same thing, its about health and freedom. i accept the health part cause a doctor said so aswell as somebody i talked to who had one. apartly her body was fucked afterwards and she was very depressed about it and tried to kill herself.

Yeah my point was those were at least legitimate arguments … but apparently he was just using bad sarcasm rather then an actual argument.

Yeah my point was those were at least legitimate arguments … but apparently he was just using bad sarcasm rather then an actual argument.

my point was that they are not, cause the pro-lifers have the whole health and freedom buzz on thier side..

my point was that they are not, cause the pro-lifers have the whole health and freedom buzz on thier side..

Why do they have it “on their side” more then any other.

Personally the ability to control ones body sounds like a freedom to me and that is not one espoused by the pro lifers.

Edit and note what I originally said … I said VALID not correct. There is at least a line of reasoning on both sides at some point.

The originally posted quote was using the potential political standing of the possible future person as reasoning for being pro choice … that is not valid reasoning.

my point was that they are not, cause the pro-lifers have the whole health and freedom buzz on thier side..
Given that childbirth is at least 7 times more dangerous than abortion, I'm not quite clear on how you reason that.

And then you have to add in the fact that most of the anti-choice lobby is also anti-contraception. That means more unplanned pregnancies and STD infections, which I hardly think should be considered "healthy."

Personally the ability to control ones body sounds like a freedom to me and that is not one espoused by the pro lifers.


the freedom to live is on , you guessed it, the pro-life side. luckily our consitution protects everyones right to live.

And then you have to add in the fact that most of the anti-choice lobby is also anti-contraception. That means more unplanned pregnancies and STD infections, which I hardly think should be considered "healthy."

not my pro-life group. we are not religious.

the funny thing is that, pro-lifers say the same thing, its about health and freedom. i accept the health part cause a doctor said so aswell as somebody i talked to who had one. apartly her body was fucked afterwards and she was very depressed about it and tried to kill herself.

So you accept it without proper research because someone told you so. How sad. A little information,

A) late-term abortions are very dangerous for the woman, generally moreso than birth. So the claim that women would like to get them as a means of birth control is absurd.

B) early-term abortions are harder on the body than a condom or birth control pill so the suggestion that women would get an abortion rather than use regular birth control is also absurd.

C) early-term abortions are MUCH safer than birth. They are hard on the body, but they are NOTHING compared to pregnancy and birth. Not even remotely comparable. The idea that the argument for anti-choice is related even remotely to the mother is downright absurd.

D) Okay, you say that women who get abortions have all these mental illnesses. Let's suppose for a moment that's true. What's the comparison to the mental women who are told they must remain pregnant against their will and must have a child against their will. What's the mental state of those women, assuming your argument is true? What the mental state of women who get illegal abortions on the black market because abortions are illegal as opposed to women who get abortions from a doctor in a hospital or clinic? Let's make real comparisons here. I suspect you'll find that there is no causal link between the things you are trying to link.

the freedom to live is on , you guessed it, the pro-life side. luckily our consitution protects everyones right to live.

During the first trimester they are not protecting a person … they are protecting the potential for a person.

To me a persons right to body overrules any “right” of a non person

the freedom to live is on , you guessed it, the pro-life side. luckily our consitution protects everyones right to live.

Yep, every single person's right to live. It doesn't make one statement about a 'potential' person.

Make one argument, any argument that wouldn't equally applicable to potential that is denied by birth control, since you say you're not against birth control.

For someone involved in a pro-life group, you seem to admit a severe amount of ignorance on this subject. You take the word of a doctor and a friend rather than looking at any actual information on the subject and you take what people tell you and you get involved in a political group? That's nonsense. Blind acceptance of any position, ANY position, is shameful.

Yep, every single person's right to live. It doesn't make one statement about a 'potential' person.

Make one argument, any argument that wouldn't equally applicable to potential that is denied by birth control, since you say you're not against birth control.

For someone involved in a pro-life group, you seem to admit a severe amount of ignorance on this subject. You take the word of a doctor and a friend rather than looking at any actual information on the subject and you take what people tell you and you get involved in a political group? That's nonsense. Blind acceptance of any position, ANY position, is shameful.

have other reasons too, which i regard higher, i wasnt unloading all my opions on the subject just what came up on the thread.

also i regard potential people just as important.
how one diffines a "person" is very long conversation.

the freedom to live is on , you guessed it, the pro-life side. luckily our consitution protects everyones right to live.

And yet, it is strangely quiet on the 'rights' of blobs of uterine jelly...

also i regard potential people just as important.
how one diffines a "person" is very long conversation.

Would you eat feces?

And yet, it is strangely quiet on the 'rights' of blobs of uterine jelly...

it is considered that our bit in the consitution does, hense its still illegal in ireland.

Would you eat feces?

no cause i dont think it would be very good for your stomach, also i dont like the smell, so i'm guessing it tastes simular to its smell.

have other reasons too, which i regard higher, i wasnt unloading all my opions on the subject just what came up on the thread.

also i regard potential people just as important.
how one diffines a "person" is very long conversation.

What percentage chance do we have to see of this 'potential person' becoming a person in order to subjugate the body and rights of an actual person?

it is considered that our bit in the consitution does, hense its still illegal in ireland.

Not at all - the Irish constitution 'regulates' abortion based on 'religious' rights, not 'human' rights.

no cause i dont think it would be very good for your stomach, also i dont like the smell, so i'm guessing it tastes simular to its smell.

Irrelevent.

Everything you eat is 'potential' feces.

If your argument for 'potential' is logical, you demand a 'potential person' is the same as a person... thus, 'potentil feces' is 'the same as' actual feces.

If you have the courage of your alleged convictions, you should eat shit.

Not at all - the Irish constitution 'regulates' abortion based on 'religious' rights, not 'human' rights.

human rights are debatable.
majority of people in ireland* claim they are catholic so catholic law rules, horray for democracy.

*in 2004, irish times said 88%. luftansa said a few months said 98%. increase probably due to poles coming in. thanks poland.:D

human rights are debatable.
majority of people in ireland* claim they are catholic so catholic law rules, horray for democracy.

*in 2004, irish times said 88%. luftansa said a few months said 98%. increase probably due to poles coming in. thanks poland.:D

You realise you just killed your own argument... yes?

Irrelevent.

Everything you eat is 'potential' feces.

If your argument for 'potential' is logical, you demand a 'potential person' is the same as a person... thus, 'potentil feces' is 'the same as' actual feces.

If you have the courage of your alleged convictions, you should eat shit.

i said "important" not "the same".

you can eat my shit if you like.:D

You realise you just killed your own argument... yes?

explain.
catholic church is very pro-life.

human rights are debatable.
majority of people in ireland* claim they are catholic so catholic law rules, horray for democracy.

*in 2004, irish times said 88%. luftansa said a few months said 98%. increase probably due to poles coming in. thanks poland.:D

If they are rights they are not subject to vote. YOU are talking about priveleges.

If they are rights they are not subject to vote. YOU are talking about priveleges.

how does we decide if it is a right or not?

i said "important" not "the same".

you can eat my shit if you like.:D

Either a foetus is 'equal' to a real person, or it is not.

If it IS equal - then 'important' is a red herring, and the phrase you should have used, is 'the same'.

If it is NOT equal - then you have no argument for 'protection' of the foetus, as a 'person'.

Either you used the wrong words, or you have no non-religious argument...

Which?

how does we decide if it is a right or not?

Not by vote. If your rights are subject to vote, they are not rights at all. Rights by definition must not be subject to control by others.

explain.
catholic church is very pro-life.

Exactly.

You said the constitution has something to say about 'uterine jelly'.

It doesn't.

It makes dictates based on religious prejuduce.

It don't say shit about 'uterine jelly'.

'uterine jelly'.

some of us dont give a shit about what the proper names for what you may call 'the initial stages of life', thats what i thought you ment by "uterine jelly". i dont do biology so i dont know the proper words. pro-choicers call it several thing like "clump of cells". i dont care what its called, i'm not a doctor, that little cell that multiplies and eventually becomes a person, is important to me and alot of people.

some of us dont give a shit about what the proper names for what you may call 'the initial stages of life', thats what i thought you ment by "uterine jelly". i dont do biology so i dont know the proper words. pro-choicers call it several thing like "clump of cells". i dont care what its called, i'm not a doctor, that little cell that multiplies and eventually becomes a person, is important to me and alot of people.

I think it is most important to the mother … it affects her life the most. Which is why it should be HER choice

some of us dont give a shit about what the proper names for what you may call 'the initial stages of life', thats what i thought you ment by "uterine jelly". i dont do biology so i dont know the proper words. pro-choicers call it several thing like "clump of cells". i dont care what its called, i'm not a doctor, that little cell that multiplies and eventually becomes a person, is important to me and alot of people.

Again, I'll ask, what level of potential is necessary in order for you to find it adequate enough to overwhelm the rights of the woman? I'm sure you know that that clump of cells will NOT necessarily eventually become a person.

I think it is most important to the mother … it affects her life the most. Which is why it should be HER choice

Apparently, the very real life of the mother is not nearly as important as the potential life of the embryo. Because a pregnancy, particularly one that a person is unprepared for, is a very real threat to the woman's life.

I think it is most important to the mother … it affects her life the most. Which is why it should be HER choice

some would say it effects society.

some would say it effects society.

That's not an argument. I could make the same vague argument invoking an abridgement of your right to breathe. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't defend such an argument.

some would say it effects society.

Rubbish. 'Potential' has no effects, except in fearmongering.

Would you have aborted Hitler? His potential, un-fulfilled, would have benefitted much of humanity, greatly... it would have impacted 'society', in a positive fashion.

Again - if your arguments are to pretend any claim to consistency or logic, aborting Hitler would have to be good, right?

some of us dont give a shit about what the proper names for what you may call 'the initial stages of life', thats what i thought you ment by "uterine jelly". i dont do biology so i dont know the proper words. pro-choicers call it several thing like "clump of cells". i dont care what its called, i'm not a doctor, that little cell that multiplies and eventually becomes a person, is important to me and alot of people.

If you care little enough about the subject to not even know the 'names of the players', so to speak... how much is your 'opinion' worth?

If you care little enough about the subject to not even know the 'names of the players', so to speak... how much is your 'opinion' worth?

He actually wants to deny woman rights, but can't be arsed to educate himself on the subject in any real way, yet claims his arguments don't originate from religious arguments. He admits they don't originate from a technical understanding. So what is it, "I think it's icky and I'm willing to force you to act like it's icky"?

He doesn't know the names of the players, he admits his source for the effects is a friend and one doctor. "I dun go for that book learnin', ma!" He's seeking to change the law to subjugate women to his whim and yet is not ashamed to admit he does so with out the least bit of concern for ensuring he is right. How sad.

Still waiting to hear about this potential we keep being told is what is 'important. Come on, Gor, you want to make laws that force women to fulfill your whims, certainly you can tell me something as simple as what level of potential one must achieve in order to become important?

A 1% chance of becoming a human being? A 90% chance of becoming a human being? What level of potential is necessary to risk a woman's life and health while denying her, her freedoms?

some would say it effects society.
Ah yes, "Some would say..."

Such a glorious phrase. Now, I'm not going to put myself out there by claiming something to be true, but I need some oblique way of making it the topic of discussion. I know! I'll point out that SOME would say it is the case!

I'm not saying that's ME, mind you, nor am I about to tell you why we should listen to "some" on this subject, I'm just pointing out that SOME would say it! And if we're going to be fair and balanced, why, we can't just ignore what SOME would say! They'd say it, I tell you, and that means we ought to give it the same amount of serious consideration as actual facts and real information!

He actually wants to deny woman rights, but can't be arsed to educate himself on the subject in any real way, yet claims his arguments don't originate from religious arguments. He admits they don't originate from a technical understanding. So what is it, "I think it's icky and I'm willing to force you to act like it's icky"?

He doesn't know the names of the players, he admits his source for the effects is a friend and one doctor. "I dun go for that book learnin', ma!" He's seeking to change the law to subjugate women to his whim and yet is not ashamed to admit he does so with out the least bit of concern for ensuring he is right. How sad.

The 'shame' part I can understand.

I don't see how one supports an argument that one does not oppose abortion on religious grounds... and then provide consitituional evidence that is shown to be religious... social evidence that is shown to be religious... and an absolute lack of knoweldge of the actual biology of the subject.

Add to that, the fact that I've queered the pitches of both his/her 'human rights' AND 'potential' arguments... I really wonder what EXACTLY the argument for pro-life IS supposed to be being based on here?

Before I start, this isn't directed at anyone in particular, on this forum or anywhere, and I'm a guy.

Sure, she killed a baby, but considering how much pain women go through to have babies, and the financial strain babies can create, especially since she's single with two children already, I don't think she necessarily did anything wrong. Mind you, it would have been better for her to get an abortion, but hindsight is 20/20, now isn't it?

God forbid a woman who doesn't want to have a baby actually decide not to. I think that if men had to have children too, abortion wouldn't be an issue at all. Its because men don't have to go through childbirth that so many of them, particularly conservatists, find abortion to be such a bad thing.

This form of abortion is of course not one I approve of, but considering abortion is becoming seen as something 'evil' by many, I can see the stress a situation could create.

I think that if men had to have children too, abortion wouldn't be an issue at all.

Quoted for truth.

Before I start, this isn't directed at anyone in particular, on this forum or anywhere, and I'm a guy.

Sure, she killed a baby, but considering how much pain women go through to have babies, and the financial strain babies can create, especially since she's single with two children already, I don't think she necessarily did anything wrong. Mind you, it would have been better for her to get an abortion, but hindsight is 20/20, now isn't it?

God forbid a woman who doesn't want to have a baby actually decide not to. I think that if men had to have children too, abortion wouldn't be an issue at all. Its because men don't have to go through childbirth that so many of them, particularly conservatists, find abortion to be such a bad thing.

This form of abortion is of course not one I approve of, but considering abortion is becoming seen as something 'evil' by many, I can see the stress a situation could create.

This was not a case about legalized abortion. And it's not about hindsight. She did a clearly irrational and dangerous act. She was sick. There is something wrong with shooting yourself in the stomach to prevent an already viable fetus from imminently entering the world. Should she be in prison? No. But pretending like this is somehow related to the basic argument on the legality of abortion is a stretch gum couldn't handle.

This was not a case about legalized abortion. And it's not about hindsight. She did a clearly irrational and dangerous act. She was sick. There is something wrong with shooting yourself in the stomach to prevent an already viable fetus from imminently entering the world. Should she be in prison? No. But pretending like this is somehow related to the basic argument on the legality of abortion is a stretch gum couldn't handle.

You don't even really have to go beyond: "...There is something wrong with shooting yourself in the stomach..." to make the point...

Rubbish. 'Potential' has no effects, except in fearmongering.

Would you have aborted Hitler? His potential, un-fulfilled, would have benefitted much of humanity, greatly... it would have impacted 'society', in a positive fashion.

Again - if your arguments are to pretend any claim to consistency or logic, aborting Hitler would have to be good, right?

no i wouldnt have aborted hitler.

He actually wants to deny woman rights, but can't be arsed to educate himself on the subject in any real way, yet claims his arguments don't originate from religious arguments. He admits they don't originate from a technical understanding. So what is it, "I think it's icky and I'm willing to force you to act like it's icky"?

He doesn't know the names of the players, he admits his source for the effects is a friend and one doctor. "I dun go for that book learnin', ma!" He's seeking to change the law to subjugate women to his whim and yet is not ashamed to admit he does so with out the least bit of concern for ensuring he is right. How sad.

deny rights?
the only right you are born with is free speach, the rest we agree on.
who said anything about changing the law? its already illegal in my country. i unfortunitly cant change the laws in other countries. so i'm not going to try. unless you want to join my army?:)

no i wouldnt have aborted hitler.

Why? He was potential Hitler, and as you've said potential is what matters. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for that answer. Don't tell me you haven't thought about how much potential must exist in order for you to sugjugate the rights of a woman. Remember you said your argument applies to abortion and not birth control so you must only be talking about when the potential gets over like, say, 80%, right?

deny rights?
the only right you are born with is free speach, the rest we agree on.
who said anything about changing the law? its already illegal in my country. i unfortunitly cant change the laws in other countries. so i'm not going to try. unless you want to join my army?:)

You're not born with the right to decide what happens to your body? If I butt raped you, you don't think I'd have violated your rights?

This was not a case about legalized abortion. And it's not about hindsight. She did a clearly irrational and dangerous act. She was sick. There is something wrong with shooting yourself in the stomach to prevent an already viable fetus from imminently entering the world. Should she be in prison? No. But pretending like this is somehow related to the basic argument on the legality of abortion is a stretch gum couldn't handle.

wow, we arekind of agreeing on something.
"the liberals and the conservatives can be friends!", thats from my musical i'm working on.

You're not born with the right to decide what happens to your body? If I butt raped you, you don't think I'd have violated your rights?

thats illegal, decided via voting and other simular methods. i dont like the idea of being raped, but being a large fellow, i dont have worry much about that.

More fucktards hurting the cause of freedom of choice.

so true, so true. I don't think she should be charged with murder. get her help or some unstupifier-pills or something, yes

Why? He was potential Hitler, and as you've said potential is what matters. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for that answer. Don't tell me you haven't thought about how much potential must exist in order for you to sugjugate the rights of a woman. Remember you said your argument applies to abortion and not birth control so you must only be talking about when the potential gets over like, say, 80%, right?

i wouldnt like to kill anyone under the age of 21.
people pick things to be there cause, some people split thier efforts into several causes. i forcus one, mass producing healthy educated people, abortion goes against that. when people become adults, they are not my problem.

thats illegal, decided via voting and other simular methods. i dont like the idea of being raped, but being a large fellow, i dont have worry much about that.

I didn't ask if it was illegal. Are you honestly arguing that there is nothing wrong with rape? Keep in mind that in order to make something illegal you have to demonstrate WHY it's illegal. In most countries the reason, they make it illegal is because the right to control your body is an essential freedom. It's the reason, slavery is illegal.

How did you settle on something as dumb as the only right is freedom of speech, especially since you've already declared other rights in this very thread?

I didn't ask if it was illegal. Are you honestly arguing that there is nothing wrong with rape? Keep in mind that in order to make something illegal you have to demonstrate WHY it's illegal. In most countries the reason, they make it illegal is because the right to control your body is an essential freedom. It's the reason, slavery is illegal.

How did you settle on something as dumb as the only right is freedom of speech, especially since you've already declared other rights in this very thread?

rape is bad cause rape victims, often but not all, become emotionally damaged and my become criminals in the future. simular to the reason why animal abuse is forbiden(mostly), cause it can lead to abusers going for a bigger high and start abusing people.

i wouldnt like to kill anyone under the age of 21.
people pick things to be there cause, some people split thier efforts into several causes. i forcus one, mass producing healthy educated people, abortion goes against that. when people become adults, they are not my problem.

Apparently, they're never your problem. You can't even be arsed to educate yourself on this subject, because you're a big, bad man who will never be forced to do what he doesn't want. You wouldn't people using your body however they want as you've admitted, but you're willing to try to force your view on women even though you ADMIT that you don't thing one about how abortion works, how pregnancy works, the effects of such things, or any of the other stuff you NEED to know in order to make a decision on abortion that isn't simply ignorant.

You've still avoided the question, what percentage of potential do you need? You claimed that birth control is okay but abortion isn't? What percentage? 80% good for you?

And birth control goes against your 'cause'. You know that, right? It lowers the number of babies being born. Oh, and women saying no lowers it, too. Fortunately, according to you they don't have a right to say no, because they have no right to their body. I guess people's bodies belong to society. So you should be campaiging for forced pregnancies. Oh, wait, you are. I mean you should be campaigning for MORE forced pregnancies.

Apparently, they're never your problem. You can't even be arsed to educate yourself on this subject, because you're a big, bad man who will never be forced to do what he doesn't want. You wouldn't people using your body however they want as you've admitted, but you're willing to try to force your view on women even though you ADMIT that you don't thing one about how abortion works, how pregnancy works, the effects of such things, or any of the other stuff you NEED to know in order to make a decision on abortion that isn't simply ignorant.

You've still avoided the question, what percentage of potential do you need? You claimed that birth control is okay but abortion isn't? What percentage? 80% good for you?

And birth control goes against your 'cause'. You know that, right? It lowers the number of babies being born. Oh, and women saying no lowers it, too. Fortunately, according to you they don't have a right to say no, because they have no right to their body. I guess people's bodies belong to society. So you should be campaiging for forced pregnancies. Oh, wait, you are. I mean you should be campaigning for MORE forced pregnancies.

wow dude(or chick), you are way to into this. going a little bit over board.
personally myself i think most healthy women should have my baby, but i think the world is a bit off from bring that in.

rape is bad cause rape victims, often but not all, become emotionally damaged and my become criminals in the future. simular to the reason why animal abuse is forbiden(mostly), cause it can lead to abusers going for a bigger high and start abusing people.

That second part is just stupid. That's not why animal abuse is forbidden. I challenge you to show me one discussion of an animal abuse law that drew that conclusion except this one.

To the first part, what crime do you think rape victims are most likely to perform in the future? You guessed it, more sexual crimes. If you just make all of them legal, no future problems. Now, of course, the reason these people are emotionally damaged is because their bodies are being violated (their rights to their bodies are being violated). It's bad because it violates the sovereignty of our bodies.

Come on, admit it. You're just trying to pretend like no other rights exist because you can't actually formulate an argument that makes sense. You've already mentioned several rights that prove that you don't really believe freedom of speech is the only right. Shall I prove it?

Apparently, they're never your problem. You can't even be arsed to educate yourself on this subject, because you're a big, bad man who will never be forced to do what he doesn't want. You wouldn't people using your body however they want as you've admitted, but you're willing to try to force your view on women even though you ADMIT that you don't thing one about how abortion works, how pregnancy works, the effects of such things, or any of the other stuff you NEED to know in order to make a decision on abortion that isn't simply ignorant.

I'm sure it's nice to be a privaledged male who will never have to deal with the physical realities of pregnancy. I'm sure it's wonderful to have the luxury of not ever needing to care about the medical realities of abortion, secure in the knowledge that you will never need one. And I'm sure it's great to know that YOUR right to your own body is never under threat, and therefore you really don't need to give serious thoughts to middling considerations like whether or not OTHER people are being violated.

However, I'm not quite sure why this fellow thinks that his laziness and ignorance count as points in favor of his arguments. "I dunno 'cause I don't care" isn't really compelling, if you ask me.

You've still avoided the question, what percentage of potential do you need? You claimed that birth control is okay but abortion isn't? What percentage? 80% good for you?

It's not about potential. It's about Sperm Magic.

See, when the man finishes doing his part, that's when it's a person. Women's bodies are just the field, and the man provides the Seed. Once the Seed has been planted, that's that.

Because it's not like women's bodies are what actually make babies. They're just passive recepticles for the tiny people that MEN deposit in them.


And birth control goes against your 'cause'. You know that, right? It lowers the number of babies being born. Oh, and women saying no lowers it, too. Fortunately, according to you they don't have a right to say no, because they have no right to their body. I guess people's bodies belong to society. So you should be campaiging for forced pregnancies. Oh, wait, you are. I mean you should be campaigning for MORE forced pregnancies.
Pretty much.

Every time a woman says "no," a potential person is denied their "right to life." Which is why the bitches just shouldn't be consulted about something as important as who gets to shove babies in their wombs.

wow dude(or chick), you are way to into this. going a little bit over board.
personally myself i think most healthy women should have my baby, but i think the world is a bit off from bring that in.

I'm way overboard? You don't understand that your argument can equally be applied in exactly the same way I applied it? If you don't, then perhaps you should considered not having any cause at all.

It's clear. You're being taken advantage of by people who recognize that you're not really educated enough to realize the fruit of the arguments they're giving you. Trust me, I'm not the only one seeing where these arguments lead. I'm just the only one telling you. Your friends know that once you deny the right to the body and declare that ANY potential for life is enough to force a woman through to birth, then you get to the point where a woman cannot legally say no to sex because it prevents a potential child and birth control MUST be illegal as well.

To claim an arbitrary line that we can't go past even though it is where the argument leads is irrational. You're not irrational, are you?

wow dude(or chick), you are way to into this. going a little bit over board.

Wow, dude, get a fucking clue. You are suggesting that 51% of the human beings on this planet do not have the right to their own bodies. It is pathetic and disgusting for you to then whine that anybody is "going over board" when they point out how twisted you are.

You casually strip billions of humans of their most fundamental rights, and then you act surprised when that upsets somebody. You're either utterly clueless, or a sociopath.


personally myself i think most healthy women should have my baby, but i think the world is a bit off from bring that in.
Personally, I think the reason you support forced pregnancy and rape is because it's only way you'll get "most healthy women" anywhere near you is if you force them.

Come on, admit it. You're just trying to pretend like no other rights exist because you can't actually formulate an argument that makes sense. You've already mentioned several rights that prove that you don't really believe freedom of speech is the only right. Shall I prove it?

i may agree that most rights given to you are usefull. but at the same time, how does one know which rights they are allowed, without talking about it?

To claim an arbitrary line that we can't go past even though it is where the argument leads is irrational. You're not irrational, are you?
Oh Joc. Why must you ask questions to which you already know the answer? :D

I'm way overboard? You don't understand that your argument can equally be applied in exactly the same way I applied it? If you don't, then perhaps you should considered not having any cause at all.

It's clear. You're being taken advantage of by people who recognize that you're not really educated enough to realize the fruit of the arguments they're giving you. Trust me, I'm not the only one seeing where these arguments lead. I'm just the only one telling you. Your friends know that once you deny the right to the body and declare that ANY potential for life is enough to force a woman through to birth, then you get to the point where a woman cannot legally say no to sex because it prevents a potential child and birth control MUST be illegal as well.

To claim an arbitrary line that we can't go past even though it is where the argument leads is irrational. You're not irrational, are you?

and yet i'm still allowed vote, and people who share my views vote. hence, my countries laws are the way they are. horray for voting!:D

and yet i'm still allowed vote, and people who share my views vote. hence, my countries laws are the way they are. horray for voting!:D
Yes, and racists can still vote. Men who rape their daughters can vote, as long as they're not caught. Hell, I'm guessing Jeffrey Dahmer voted at least once or twice in his lifetime.

What's your point? That fucked up, ignorant, cruel, or batshit-crazy people get to vote? That it's possible for nutters to get nutty laws passed, and to make life miserable for everybody else?

We're cynical enough to have figured that out long since. We've got pedophiles in Congress and rapists on the Hill. We've got convicted criminals in office. Scum quite often manages to rise to the top. Tell us something new, or go crawl back under your bridge. :D

Wow, dude, get a fucking clue. You are suggesting that 51% of the human beings on this planet do not have the right to their own bodies. It is pathetic and disgusting for you to then whine that anybody is "going over board" when they point out how twisted you are.

You casually strip billions of humans of their most fundamental rights, and then you act surprised when that upsets somebody. You're either utterly clueless, or a sociopath.


*Personally, I think the reason you support forced pregnancy and rape is because it's only way you'll get "most healthy women" anywhere near you is if you force them.

sorry, i dont recall going around in my mobile oppression unit. so i dont think i'm actually in controll of billions of people. it would be nice though.

*this bit i found funny.

Yes, and racists can still vote. Men who rape their daughters can vote, as long as they're not caught. Hell, I'm guessing Jeffrey Dahmer voted at least once or twice in his lifetime.

What's your point? That fucked up, ignorant, cruel, or batshit-crazy people get to vote? That it's possible for nutters to get nutty laws passed, and to make life miserable for everybody else?

We're cynical enough to have figured that out long since. Tell us something new, or go crawl back under your bridge. :D

my point is, i'm not oppresing anyone, the majority rules. anyone who doesnt like it, can go live in the nehterlands.
how did you know i live under a bridge? seriously.

i may agree that most rights given to you are usefull. but at the same time, how does one know which rights they are allowed, without talking about it?

See, you don't know what rights are. Rights are not allowed. They are not given. They are either violated or they aren't. Rights are something that everyone has or no one has. They aren't something YOU get to decide about women.

A right to the integrity of your body is pretty much universally agreed upon, however, even if it weren't it's a right. It's why rape is illegal. It's why assault is illegal. It's not just useful. It's a right.

Again, you've mentioned several rights, but when you decided it wasn't helpful to your argument you pretended as if the only right was the right to free speech. Come on, you can be honest, you don't care how you convince people to support your 'cause', do you? You'll tell them it doesn't violate any rights. Or you'll tell them that it's about potential. Or you'll tell them it's out of love. And you'll make up medical arguments. Or you'll make up arguments about rights. All things I've CAUGHT you doing.

Why don't you try educating yourself on this subject so you can make, you know, HONEST arguments? I'm not saying read propaganda for pro-choice. I'm saying learn the medical events that occur during pregnancy. Learn the chance for miscarriage. Learn why embryos miscarry. Learn what happens to the female body during pregnancy. Learn the chance for death during pregnancy. Learn all of these things because they are ABSOLUTELY fundamental to the debate on choice. They are fundamental to your understanding of your 'cause'.

To claim otherwise is to defend ignorance.

*cough*tyrannybymajority*cough*

About severing the cord, what you don't get is the immediacy of the solution doesn't matter when you invite someone in, you're not allowed to go, "get out... not fast enough *BANG*" How long would you have to wait before lethal force was justified?

Additionally, I'm still uncertain how you can say the location doesn't matter. The location must matter. Someone waving a gun menacingly 10 feet away from you could be construed as a threat. Someone waving a gun menacingly across town couldn't be. The proximity to the self is highly relevant in self-defense.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice this part of post #225:

This mother's life was threatened.

my point is, i'm not oppresing anyone, the majority rules. anyone who doesnt like it, can go live in the nehterlands.
how did you know i live under a bridge? seriously.

And what if the majority rules that you have no right to say no to butt rape? Will you go along quietly? What if the majority rules that you're not ALLOWED to go live in the Netherlands. I guess you'll just have to allow the rape to occur, because majority rules.

And since you're taking that line, we won't see you complaining about other countries, no? Because they have their rules and if people don't like it, they can just go live elsewhere.

You realize that when you say 'majority rules' you're talking about tyranny, no?

See, you don't know what rights are. Rights are not allowed. They are not given. They are either violated or they aren't. Rights are something that everyone has or no one has. They aren't something YOU get to decide about women.

A right to the integrity of your body is pretty much universally agreed upon, however, even if it weren't it's a right. It's why rape is illegal. It's why assault is illegal. It's not just useful. It's a right.

Again, you've mentioned several rights, but when you decided it wasn't helpful to your argument you pretended as if the only right was the right to free speech. Come on, you can be honest, you don't care how you convince people to support your 'cause', do you? You'll tell them it doesn't violate any rights. Or you'll tell them that it's about potential. Or you'll tell them it's out of love. And you'll make up medical arguments. Or you'll make up arguments about rights. All things I've CAUGHT you doing.

Why don't you try educating yourself on this subject so you can make, you know, HONEST arguments? I'm not saying read propaganda for pro-choice. I'm saying learn the medical events that occur during pregnancy. Learn the chance for miscarriage. Learn why embryos miscarry. Learn what happens to the female body during pregnancy. Learn the chance for death during pregnancy. Learn all of these things because they are ABSOLUTELY fundamental to the debate on choice. They are fundamental to your understanding of your 'cause'.

To claim otherwise is to defend ignorance.

to be honest with you i barely know what you are talking about. where did these magical rights pop up from? does every country automatically have the exact same laws? are countries which have different laws oppressive?

And what if the majority rules that you have no right to say no to butt rape? Will you go along quietly? What if the majority rules that you're not ALLOWED to go live in the Netherlands. I guess you'll just have to allow the rape to occur, because majority rules.

And since you're taking that line, we won't see you complaining about other countries, no? Because they have their rules and if people don't like it, they can just go live elsewhere.

You realize that when you say 'majority rules' you're talking about tyranny, no?

if my country made rape leagl i would leave, or try to vote in a party that was against it.
majority rules via voting, its the opposite to tyranny.

How long would you have to wait before lethal force was justified?

Additionally, I'm still uncertain how you can say the location doesn't matter. The location must matter. Someone waving a gun menacingly 10 feet away from you could be construed as a threat. Someone waving a gun menacingly across town couldn't be. The proximity to the self is highly relevant in self-defense.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice this part of post #225:

The mother's life WAS threatened... by the gun that was in her hand. There is no evidence that any credible threat to her life existed other than that gun.

Meanwhile, you keep making this claim, but I quoted an actual reference to the requirements for self-defense. You essentially completely ignored it, instead choosing to make up your own definition. You're claims don't apply. They would require me to open up my head and scoop out the part that understands the definition of self-defense. Proximity is not the deciding factor for self-defense. There must be an imminent credible threat, proximity may be a factor in how imminent it is, but it is not a factor in determining self-defense. In this case, however, you violate several of the principles necessary to claim self-defense. I showed you what they were. You chose to ignore them. They haven't changed. You can keep goldfishing, but arguing with someone who doesn't understand the words they're using, like 'self-defense', is pointless. I've tried to educate you, but you're more content with just repeating the same arguments that are ignorant of the way a self-defense claim MUST work.

no i wouldnt have aborted hitler.

Then two of your arguments are either worthless, or hypocritical...

1) Potential is 'important'

2) It is for the 'good' of 'society'

So - which is it? Worthless? Or hypocritical?

The mother's life WAS threatened... by the gun that was in her hand. There is no evidence that any credible threat to her life existed other than that gun.

Meanwhile, you keep making this claim, but I quoted an actual reference to the requirements for self-defense. You essentially completely ignored it, instead choosing to make up your own definition. You're claims don't apply. They would require me to open up my head and scoop out the part that understands the definition of self-defense. Proximity is not the deciding factor for self-defense. There must be an imminent credible threat, proximity may be a factor in how imminent it is, but it is not a factor in determining self-defense. In this case, however, you violate several of the principles necessary to claim self-defense. I showed you what they were. You chose to ignore them. They haven't changed. You can keep goldfishing, but arguing with someone who doesn't understand the words they're using, like 'self-defense', is pointless. I've tried to educate you, but you're more content with just repeating the same arguments that are ignorant of the way a self-defense claim MUST work.

you must be the smartist person in the world, we are so mush less educated than you. :D

The mother's life WAS threatened... by the gun that was in her hand. There is no evidence that any credible threat to her life existed other than that gun.

Meanwhile, you keep making this claim, but I quoted an actual reference to the requirements for self-defense. You essentially completely ignored it, instead choosing to make up your own definition. You're claims don't apply. They would require me to open up my head and scoop out the part that understands the definition of self-defense. Proximity is not the deciding factor for self-defense. There must be an imminent credible threat, proximity may be a factor in how imminent it is, but it is not a factor in determining self-defense. In this case, however, you violate several of the principles necessary to claim self-defense. I showed you what they were. You chose to ignore them. They haven't changed. You can keep goldfishing, but arguing with someone who doesn't understand the words they're using, like 'self-defense', is pointless. I've tried to educate you, but you're more content with just repeating the same arguments that are ignorant of the way a self-defense claim MUST work.What lesser amount of force could she have used to end the 'attack' at that moment?

if my country made rape leagl i would leave, or try to vote in a party that was against it.
majority rules via voting, its the opposite to tyranny.

No, it isn't. Tyranny is ignoring the rights of a group of people. In this case, you're arguing that you needn't be concerned with the rights of any group that doesn't make up a majority. That's called tyranny of the majority. It's unfortunate, but not unsurprising, that you're unfamiliar with it.

Then two of your arguments are either worthless, or hypocritical...

1) Potential is 'important'

2) It is for the 'good' of 'society'

So - which is it? Worthless? Or hypocritical?

explain why hypocritical? that concerns me.
i think your arguements are worthless too, so what?

What lesser amount of force could she have used to end the 'attack' at that moment?

At that moment isn't a requirement. Again, your ignorance isn't impressive.

rape is bad cause rape victims, often but not all, become emotionally damaged and my become criminals in the future. simular to the reason why animal abuse is forbiden(mostly), cause it can lead to abusers going for a bigger high and start abusing people.

Another logical flaw....

If you abort a foetus, that foetus will never 'beome emotionally damaged", or "become a criminal"... nor will they participate in a circle of violence.

Once abortion is completed, it's over.

At that moment isn't a requirement. Again, your ignorance isn't impressive.So then what you're saying is that if someone attacks me, but my life isn't in danger, I'm not allowed to fight back if lethal force is the only way I can fight back?

It's not about potential. It's about Sperm Magic.


Once again, Bottle wins teh intrawebs.

you must be the smartist person in the world, we are so mush less educated than you. :D

Um, smart and educated are not related.

Meanwhile, you admitted that you don't care to educate yourself about your own cause. That's twisted. Accept, at least, that you may be violating the rights of the women, and that you may be doing it simply because you don't understand your 'cause' better. You've proudly claimed your ignorance on this topic when we used words you didn't know. You're willing arguing to make law based on your ignorance.

No, it isn't. Tyranny is ignoring the rights of a group of people. In this case, you're arguing that you needn't be concerned with the rights of any group that doesn't make up a majority. That's called tyranny of the majority. It's unfortunate, but not unsurprising, that you're unfamiliar with it.

so if majority of people vote in a law or a party, and a small group of people are against it, the few should govern the many?
so we should all become gay socialist vegetarian rapists? that my friend i dont like the sound of.

Another logical flaw....

If you abort a foetus, that foetus will never 'beome emotionally damaged", or "become a criminal"... nor will they participate in a circle of violence.

Once abortion is completed, it's over.

again i say, i'm trying to make as many people as posible, abortion stops that.
as i say i'm not religious, but the bible does make nice points that suit me, i'm what might say culturally catholic.
"be fruitfull".

so if majority of people vote in a law or a party, and a small group of people are against it, the few should govern the many?
so we should all become gay socialist vegetarian rapists? that my friend i dont like the sound of.

Um, no. What it means is that the reason we respect rights is because certain things shouldn't be up for vote? To put human rights up for the vote of the majority is tyranny. What you're talking about is tyranny of the minority. And that is still tyranny. Again, you're arguing here because you don't know what tyranny IS.

majority rules via voting, its the opposite to tyranny.

No - it really isn't. A tyrannical regime CAN be entirely democratic, if the basis is people VOTING for tyrannical measures.

Someone already pointed it out... the concept is called 'tyranny of the majority'.

Um, smart and educated are not related.

Meanwhile, you admitted that you don't care to educate yourself about your own cause. That's twisted. Accept, at least, that you may be violating the rights of the women, and that you may be doing it simply because you don't understand your 'cause' better. You've proudly claimed your ignorance on this topic when we used words you didn't know. You're willing arguing to make law based on your ignorance.

whats twistes is you, twisting my words. did i say smart and educated were the same thing. there is no point in argueing if you are going to repeatedly pretend i'm saying something i'm not.
i would easily pretend that you are a pro-lifer and we agree with each other, but thats not true, so i would concider it counter productive in saying that. if you get my meaning.
i'm not making a law, i'm leave it the way it is, as i have said over and over again, in my country it is illegal. i dont need to change that.

explain why hypocritical? that concerns me.
i think your arguements are worthless too, so what?

I didn't say yours WERE worthless, I said they were either worthless or hypocritical.

Let me explain - you argued that abortion should not be allowed, because 'some could say' that it was not for the benefit of society.

By the same logic, Hitler SHOULD have been aborted... because MANY would say that he was less than beneficial to society.

If you do not agree Hitler should have been aborted, then your argument about 'the good of society' is a red herring. It is either worthless (since it doesn't hold true), or hypocrisy (because you don't ACTUALLY consider societal benefit as that important a factor). I just wish to know which.


On the other issue, you have argued that 'potential' is important. It is 'important' to not abort, because that is a 'potential' person.

By THAT logic, the foetal Hitler was 'potentially' a fascist dictator with dreams of empire, and a genocidal plan for expansion. And yet, you argue that Hitler should NOT have been aborted... the 'potential' apparently doesn't matter.


As to whether YOU think my arguments are worthless.... since you have openly admitted you have no knowledge on the subject, I very much doubt I'll lose any sleep over that.

Um, no. What it means is that the reason we respect rights is because certain things shouldn't be up for vote? To put human rights up for the vote of the majority is tyranny. What you're talking about is tyranny of the minority. And that is still tyranny. Again, you're arguing here because you don't know what tyranny IS.

you are actually starting to make me angry cause you keep forgeting to tell how do we know what our 'rights' are. one could argue its my right to get a gun and shoot people randomly cause my body gives me the urge to. but iwouldnt cause, killing people at random is illegal as well as guns(here). also i would regard that as counter productive.

again i say, i'm trying to make as many people as posible, abortion stops that.
as i say i'm not religious, but the bible does make nice points that suit me, i'm what might say culturally catholic.
"be fruitfull".

You might want to consider READING the book, if you are going to claim it as part of your cultural heritage. The Hebrew scripture also endorses genocide, the murder of women and children, and slavery.

As for the idea of making as many people as possible... it's an interesting thought... but why would we want to make Ireland a Third World nation?

So then what you're saying is that if someone attacks me, but my life isn't in danger, I'm not allowed to fight back if lethal force is the only way I can fight back?

Again, why are you goldfishing? I will again link to the requirements for a self-defense claim when using lethal force. I apologize for assuming that when I linked to it the first time you would read it. Clearly, that was expecting you to behave as one should in a debate, but I should have not expected so much, I see.

I disagree, all I have to show is that the threat of harm is present, which it is by definition in pregnancy.

You're accusing the fetus. For lethal self-defense there has to be several key factors.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
...
However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
...
First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack;
...
For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony,

But, hey, keeping an analogy that sucks if you like. However, it's very clearly destroying your argument from the inside out.

You see, the law is formed so that she can't agree to the 'attack' then suddenly change her mind and kill him. Basically, doing so is a form of trap and the law doesn't allow for that.

One, sHe didn't take any prudent or precautionary measures, which, of course, in this case, would just require her to go to the hospital and have the baby removed. It would live. She would live. And everyone is happy.

Two, it must be to preserve her life. You've shown no credible evidence that her life was in danger. None. She could die from the birth, yes. She could also die from being a passenger in a car. She can't shoot the driver of the ambulance on the way to the hospital either. It has to be a credible threat.

You haven't demonstrated that her actions in any way mitigated the threat. I showed that they in fact created a threat. You have no answer, except "but I really, really want this to be self-defense".

This doesn't meet the law's requirements for an attack. This doesn't meet the laws requirements for self-defense. This doesn't meet the laws requirements for a credible threat. You can keep claiming it does, but it just makes you look silly.

Meanwhile, you openly admit that it very much appears that she wasn't trying to end any threat of the attack, but instead a threat that the baby might stop 'attacking' her and leave that location. You've failed on every level with this analogy, yet you cling to it like a... a... well, like a birthed, viable baby with a bullethole in its head. No matter how much you squeeze it, it's not coming back to life.

I didn't say yours WERE worthless, I said they were either worthless or hypocritical.

Let me explain - you argued that abortion should not be allowed, because 'some could say' that it was not for the benefit of society.

By the same logic, Hitler SHOULD have been aborted... because MANY would say that he was less than beneficial to society.

If you do not agree Hitler should have been aborted, then your argument about 'the good of society' is a red herring. It is either worthless (since it doesn't hold true), or hypocrisy (because you don't ACTUALLY consider societal benefit as that important a factor). I just wish to know which.


On the other issue, you have argued that 'potential' is important. It is 'important' to not abort, because that is a 'potential' person.

By THAT logic, the foetal Hitler was 'potentially' a fascist dictator with dreams of empire, and a genocidal plan for expansion. And yet, you argue that Hitler should NOT have been aborted... the 'potential' apparently doesn't matter.


As to whether YOU think my arguments are worthless.... since you have openly admitted you have no knowledge on the subject, I very much doubt I'll lose any sleep over that.

if i went back in time and came across a young hitler, i wouldnt kill him cause he is still innocent. i would take him and try to raise him with better *values, so he grow up to be mostly a productive person and not evil crazy bastard. he did have skills that would have been very usefull to world, but he used them for the wrong purpose. killing a buch of people because of thier race, is counter productive.

*vaules and rights are not the same thing.

you are actually starting to make me angry cause you keep forgeting to tell how do we know what our 'rights' are. one could argue its my right to get a gun and shoot people randomly cause my body gives me the urge to. but iwouldnt cause, killing people at random is illegal as well as guns(here). also i would regard that as counter productive.

By that logic, though... rape SHOULD be legal, according to you.

It fulfills all your criteria... it would satisfy your 'urge', it doesn't kill, and it often results in more babies.

Another logical inconsistency?

if i went back in time and came across a young hitler, i wouldnt kill him cause he is still innocent. i would take him and try to raise him with better *values, so he grow up to be mostly a productive person and not evil crazy bastard. he did have skills that would have been very usefull to world, but he used them for the wrong purpose. killing a buch of people because of thier race, is counter productive.

*vaules and rights are not the same thing.

How would you raise him differently? His upbringing was probably much like your own, since he also was raised 'culturally catholic'.

As to whether he had useful skills - THAT is not the debate - the point is - you have argued that potential is important, and that it is best to do what is best for SOCIETY.

Are you admitting your claims to these arguments were not in earnest?

you are actually starting to make me angry cause you keep forgeting to tell how do we know what our 'rights' are. one could argue its my right to get a gun and shoot people randomly cause my body gives me the urge to. but iwouldnt cause, killing people at random is illegal as well as guns(here). also i would regard that as counter productive.

Am I? Starting to make you angry? Perhaps the issue here is one of self-control. I'm not responsible for your emotions.

I haven't forgotten. I have told you. You have a short memory. A conveniently short memory. Several people have mentioned that your rights end where mine begin. You don't have any rights to do anything to another person. It doesn't fit within the definition of rights.

What rights are basically comes down to a right to the sovereignty of your body, your life. Freedom of speech is a result of that. That's about sovereignty of your body and your life. So is freedom of religion. The right to life. Freedom of thought. Etc.

The only rights that are really debatably by the very definition of rights are those that extend beyond the body, like a right to privacy or a right to marry. Now I would argue that as long as the people involved agree then there should be group rights as well, but they aren't inherent like the others.

However, the right to the body is basic to the very definition of a right.

You might want to consider READING the book, if you are going to claim it as part of your cultural heritage. The Hebrew scripture also endorses genocide, the murder of women and children, and slavery.

As for the idea of making as many people as possible... it's an interesting thought... but why would we want to make Ireland a Third World nation?

we not going to run into over population anytime soon. it is predicted that we are not going to have enough young people by the time the current youing people retire.
i'm not hebrew. new testiment has slightly different vaules in it. the point of jesus was that he was going to try change things. but also note i dont support absolutely everything claimed in the bible. its just a good starting. propper catholics generally have good vaules, even though they may not be perfect.

By that logic, though... rape SHOULD be legal, according to you.

It fulfills all your criteria... it would satisfy your 'urge', it doesn't kill, and it often results in more babies.

Another logical inconsistency?

i've already said i'm against rape and stated my reason. it causes problems.

Well, I don’t think this is a freedom of choice deterioration symptom. The judge failed to find a suitable law to charge the mother. But it’s not up to the judge to charge her with a crime she did not committed since the application of the law is not interpretative. Now is up to the legislators of the State to fix the problem.

I wonder is she could be charge with some kind of gun related law and the prosecutor may have ruined the case by prosecuted for the wrong crime.

whats twistes is you, twisting my words. did i say smart and educated were the same thing. there is no point in argueing if you are going to repeatedly pretend i'm saying something i'm not.
i would easily pretend that you are a pro-lifer and we agree with each other, but thats not true, so i would concider it counter productive in saying that. if you get my meaning.
i'm not making a law, i'm leave it the way it is, as i have said over and over again, in my country it is illegal. i dont need to change that.

Yes, you said I must be very smart because I educate myself. That's either a misuse of the terms or irrational. I guess instead of figuring you misused the terms I should have assumed you were irrational. Sorry for giving you more credit.

You are making law. Every day that you don't say a law is wrong, you are making law. And you are quite happy to subjugate women based on your admitted ignorance on the subject. I find that disgusting.

How would you raise him differently? His upbringing was probably much like your own, since he also was raised 'culturally catholic'.

As to whether he had useful skills - THAT is not the debate - the point is - you have argued that potential is important, and that it is best to do what is best for SOCIETY.

Are you admitting your claims to these arguments were not in earnest?

actually reading about i reallised we did have a very simular upbringing. what would have been best for society would have been using his skills for a more productive cause.

Am I? Starting to make you angry? Perhaps the issue here is one of self-control. I'm not responsible for your emotions.

I haven't forgotten. I have told you. You have a short memory. A conveniently short memory. Several people have mentioned that your rights end where mine begin. You don't have any rights to do anything to another person. It doesn't fit within the definition of rights.

What rights are basically comes down to a right to the sovereignty of your body, your life. Freedom of speech is a result of that. That's about sovereignty of your body and your life. So is freedom of religion. The right to life. Freedom of thought. Etc.

The only rights that are really debatably by the very definition of rights are those that extend beyond the body, like a right to privacy or a right to marry. Now I would argue that as long as the people involved agree then there should be group rights as well, but they aren't inherent like the others.

However, the right to the body is basic to the very definition of a right.
alot of people would agree(i'm saying would or would not), that abortion violates rights.

i've already said i'm against rape and stated my reason. it causes problems.

So does making abortion illegal. It causese these women to commit crimes, getting illegal abortions, exactly the same argument you made about rape. Strike one. Normally law-abiding women. It endangers their lives much more so than legal abortions. Strike two. Even worse than rape. And it causes emotional damage to force a woman to seek out such a solution or to have a child she doesn't want. Same argument as rape. Strike three.

According to your own reasoning, rape isn't as bad as making abortion illegal is. Too bad you don't have some rights to pull out of your pocket to make your argument.

alot of people would agree(i'm saying would or would not), that abortion violates rights.

Whose rights? See, by definition rights have to be applied to a person. An actual person. In early-term abortion, the only person who has rights, who can have rights is the woman. And you're right, it's true that abortion law violates rights.

Yes, you said I must be very smart because I educate myself. That's either a misuse of the terms or irrational. I guess instead of figuring you misused the terms I should have assumed you were irrational. Sorry for giving you more credit.

You are making law. Every day that you don't say a law is wrong, you are making law. And you are quite happy to subjugate women based on your admitted ignorance on the subject. I find that disgusting.

i love oppressing women, i do it every morning! :D
/joking.
can you go back and qoute me on that? without twisting my words. stop ignoring what i'm actually trying to get across, you keep on looping the decusion.

we not going to run into over population anytime soon. it is predicted that we are not going to have enough young people by the time the current youing people retire.
i'm not hebrew. new testiment has slightly different vaules in it. the point of jesus was that he was going to try change things. but also note i dont support absolutely everything claimed in the bible. its just a good starting. propper catholics generally have good vaules, even though they may not be perfect.

You're going to use Jesus as the argument? Are you kidding? What did Jesus say about abortion? Nothing. Not one thing.

we not going to run into over population anytime soon. it is predicted that we are not going to have enough young people by the time the current youing people retire.
i'm not hebrew. new slightly testiment has different vaules in it. the point of jesus was that he was going to try change things. but also note i dont support absolutely everything claimed in the bible. its just a good starting. propper catholics generally have good vaules, even though they may not be perfect.

It isn't a matter of 'overpopulation'... it is a matter of economics. Ireland lacks the material resources to support a much larger population - and would, thus, have to add imports. Ireland also would not be able to easily support a greatly expanded population of any given age-range. Just think what the tax burden would be like for the current working generation, putting an inflated 'youth generation' through school. This is why immigration is a so much better way to raise populations in 'First World' countries - it brings in the 'young' AND the working age.

As for your religious argument... I'm not going to debate that issue with someone who has admitted they don't really know the scripture.

And... the values of Catholics? Are they good? Certainly debatable.. I'd argue that 2000 years of oppressive religiousity, combined with a kind of militant mysticism, was not a good thing.

alot of people would agree(i'm saying would or would not), that abortion violates rights.

They would be wrong.

A foetus has no rights.... and neither should it have any.

i love oppressing women, i do it every morning! :D
/joking.
can you go back and qoute me on that? without twisting my words. stop ignoring what i'm actually trying to get across, you keep on looping the decusion.

You are complaining because someone is basing their interpretation of your meaning... on what you have written?

i love oppressing women, i do it every morning! :D
/joking.
can you go back and qoute me on that? without twisting my words. stop ignoring what i'm actually trying to get across, you keep on looping the decusion.

You don't remember what you said? Wow. Meanwhile, you do realize that you've been avoiding a part of this argument the entire time. On purpose.

I'll ask again, what level of potential is enough for you to invoke the right to life? You've said that you aren't talking about birth control so what would you say, 80%?

Dropping arguments is a logical fallacy. You've been dropping this argument for two days. Do you not have an answer?

So does making abortion illegal. It causese these women to commit crimes, getting illegal abortions, exactly the same argument you made about rape. Strike one. Normally law-abiding women. It endangers their lives much more so than legal abortions. Strike two. Even worse than rape. And it causes emotional damage to force a woman to seek out such a solution or to have a child she doesn't want. Same argument as rape. Strike three.

According to your own reasoning, rape isn't as bad as making abortion illegal is. Too bad you don't have some rights to pull out of your pocket to make your argument.

i'm going off to smoke, i dont see a point in talking to you anymore. if you insist on making statements like this. silly thought experiments. thought experiments dont work if you dont fully understand someones opinion.

i'm going off to smoke, i dont see a point in talking to you anymore. if you insist on making statements like this. silly thought experiments. thought experiments dont work if you dont fully understand someones opinion.

This isn't a thought experiment. This is the real world.

In the real world, when abortion is illegal women still get them. According to you, the purpose of making something illegal is to prevent future crimes. These are future crimes. You are creating criminals.

In the real world, women who are denied abortions and are required to follow through with a pregnancy are injured. It causese them emotional distress, as does an illegal abortion. According to your argument, the purpose of making something illegal is to PREVENT this kind of distress.

In the real world, women who are denied abortions can A) either die from illegal abortions or B) die from childbirth, the risk of both goes up when you make abortion illegal. You invoked the right to life, so one could logically assume that the purpose of making something illegal is to PREVENT this event as well.

It's not a thought experiments. These are things that happen in the real world and can be proven. Your ignorance of their occurance doesn't make them fantasy. We're not talking about what would happen if the world were socialist or if there were no war. We are talking about what DOES happen when abortion IS illegal.

i'm going off to smoke, i dont see a point in talking to you anymore. if you insist on making statements like this. silly thought experiments. thought experiments dont work if you dont fully understand someones opinion.

In other words - you STILL don't have any actual arguments, STILL haven't answered any of Jocabia's questions, and choose to cut-and-run, rather than admit that your argument would BEST be described as 'prejudice'?

In other words - you STILL don't have any actual arguments, STILL haven't answered any of Jocabia's questions, and choose to cut-and-run, rather than admit that your argument would BEST be described as 'prejudice'?
Of course.

Trolls always suddenly have class to go to, or an appointment to make, or a cig to smoke, just when they finally start to realize that nobody is buying what they're trying to sell.

alot of people would agree(i'm saying would or would not), that abortion violates rights.

And a lot of people would agree that the Earth is only 6000 years old. They'd be wrong, too.

Again, why are you goldfishing? Probably because I have no idea what the term means.

I will again link to the requirements for a self-defense claim when using lethal force. I apologize for assuming that when I linked to it the first time you would read it. Clearly, that was expecting you to behave as one should in a debate, but I should have not expected so much, I see.The page alone is insufficient for your case. It might work with one or two other sources, but not alone.

You see, the law is formed so that she can't agree to the 'attack' then suddenly change her mind and kill him. Basically, doing so is a form of trap and the law doesn't allow for that. This page says nothing about what happens if you invite someone in and they overstay their welcome.

One, sHe didn't take any prudent or precautionary measures, which, of course, in this case, would just require her to go to the hospital and have the baby removed. It would live. She would live. And everyone is happy.I'm not entirely certain that that would be a precautionary measure, since the fetus is already inside her. The attack, in this case, would already have started.

Two, it must be to preserve her life. No, it must be to prevent a felony. Or, it could even be:

"2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself"

This would draw the argument back to whether or not the leeching of a woman's energy against her will counts as beating her (or an equivalent) or not.

You're going to use Jesus as the argument? Are you kidding? What did Jesus say about abortion? Nothing. Not one thing.

i dont recall using jesus as a referance.

As for your religious argument... I'm not going to debate that issue with someone who has admitted they don't really know the scripture.

And... the values of Catholics? Are they good? Certainly debatable.. I'd argue that 2000 years of oppressive religiousity, combined with a kind of militant mysticism, was not a good thing.

again putting words in mouth. i never i'm pro-life for religious reasons. i said ireland is mostly pro-life cause of religious reasons. but not myself.
as for militant mysticism, note i said proper catholics. not all people brought up catholic are proper catholics.

Does it really matter what the judge decided?
If he had found her guilty of murder, I'd say her lawyers could have successfully argued for a temporary insanity plea and had the charges dropped anyway.
Let's face it: A woman would have to be extremely compos non mentis to do what this woman did.

You are complaining because someone is basing their interpretation of your meaning... on what you have written?

complaining cause people keep saying i said something i didnt.

i dont recall using jesus as a referance.

The fact that you cannot seem to recall anything more than one browser page behind, does not invalidate the point that was being made.

You don't remember what you said? Wow. Meanwhile, you do realize that you've been avoiding a part of this argument the entire time. On purpose.

I'll ask again, what level of potential is enough for you to invoke the right to life? You've said that you aren't talking about birth control so what would you say, 80%?

Dropping arguments is a logical fallacy. You've been dropping this argument for two days. Do you not have an answer?

my maths isnt good enough to workout the probabilty, maybe next year. even if it is low, i'm still supporting what evolution and nature are intending to do.

again putting words in mouth. i never i'm pro-life for religious reasons.


I didn't say you were basing your arguments on religion... I think you misunderstand me.

By 'your Jesus argument', I mean the points you make about Jesus 'coming to change things' - a perspective which is pretty much entirely insupportable if you've ever actually READ the scripture. Since you clearly have not, it is not worth wasting my time debating 'your Jesus argument' with you.

i said ireland is mostly pro-life cause of religious reasons. but not myself.


And yet, ALL of your other 'arguments' have been shown to be false.

It seems to leave us with you accepting the religious arguments of others, rather than making your own decisions... and that's one of the more optimistic scenarios.


as for militant mysticism, note i said proper catholics. not all people brought up catholic are proper catholics.

And you get to decide? Didn't you say you are not even a Catholic, yourself?

Probably because I have no idea what the term means.

Goldfish have very short memories. They think the castle is new every trip around the bowl. You act like your argument that's been repeatedly destroyed is new every trip around the bowl.

The page alone is insufficient for your case. It might work with one or two other sources, but not alone.

I see. So your sourceless argument is sufficient, but my sourced argument only works if I bring three sources. Address the source and stop relying on logical fallacies.


This page says nothing about what happens if you invite someone in and they overstay their welcome.

Yes, it does. It says that you cannot kill someone without taking reasonable steps to protect yourself in other ways, including not inviting someone in and then saying "leave, not fast enough *bang*" as is your claim.


I'm not entirely certain that that would be a precautionary measure, since the fetus is already inside her. The attack, in this case, would already have started.

Again, she had access to an abortion. She chose not to get one. That is tacit agreement to the pregnancy. It would be like as if you threw a party in your yard and left your door open (without giving anyone permission to enter the house). The next morning you found me sleeping on your couch. You make me breakfast, chat with me, have sex with me, take a shower with me, and THEN shoot me for breaking in.


No, it must be to prevent a felony. Or, it could even be:

"2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself"

Yep, and an assault is not occurring here. You've already admitted that. Meanwhile, it explicitly says lethal self-defens when it means lethal self-defense. It doesn't here because it doesn't here. If a man punched me and I killed him, I would have to prove that I was either in imminent danger of dying or that I killed him by accident.



This would draw the argument back to whether or not the leeching of a woman's energy against her will counts as beating her (or an equivalent) or not.

And THAT is goldfishing. You've already admitted that this is not assault. Assault requires the attack to be illegal. This is not.

complaining cause people keep saying i said something i didnt.

Maybe you didn't say what you mean?

my maths isnt good enough to workout the probabilty, maybe next year. even if it is low, i'm still supporting what evolution and nature are intending to do.
Clarify for me: what, exactly, are you claiming that "evolution and nature" are intending to do?

Are you claiming that "evolution and nature" intend for a fertilized egg to become a born human infant?

Are you claiming that "evolution and nature" intend for "potential people" to become "actual people"? If so, what do YOU define as a "potential person"? Is it a fertilized egg? A viable fetus? A born infant?

Are you claiming that "evolution and nature" require that all "potential people" be born?

What are you claiming, anyhow?

my maths isnt good enough to workout the probabilty, maybe next year. even if it is low, i'm still supporting what evolution and nature are intending to do.

You do realize of course that evolution causes spontaneous abortion when a women is not capable of raising a child (of course nature can only tell when she is not capable of raising a child in natural ways). Nature can't account for being poor so it aborts the child is the women is undernourished or stressed or any number of less than ideal conditions. Now, we have the ability to analyze further less than ideal conditions and react as such. Nature tells us that children shouldn't be raised in less than adequate circumstances. Nature and evolution ENCOURAGE abortion, not prevent it.

This isn't a thought experiment. This is the real world.

In the real world, when abortion is illegal women still get them. According to you, the purpose of making something illegal is to prevent future crimes. These are future crimes. You are creating criminals.

In the real world, women who are denied abortions and are required to follow through with a pregnancy are injured. It causese them emotional distress, as does an illegal abortion. According to your argument, the purpose of making something illegal is to PREVENT this kind of distress.

In the real world, women who are denied abortions can A) either die from illegal abortions or B) die from childbirth, the risk of both goes up when you make abortion illegal. You invoked the right to life, so one could logically assume that the purpose of making something illegal is to PREVENT this event as well.

It's not a thought experiments. These are things that happen in the real world and can be proven. Your ignorance of their occurance doesn't make them fantasy. We're not talking about what would happen if the world were socialist or if there were no war. We are talking about what DOES happen when abortion IS illegal.

a thought experiment is when you use someones point in a different situation. thats would you did. thought experiments are only good if you understand the persons point if of view in the alternate situation.

we dont like something we put in laws against it. people should follow the law, laws help us decide if should do something or not. making sure people follow laws is a different matter.
do you think we should legalise rape, so victims can raped closer to hospitals so the get treatment quicker? i dont.

And a lot of people would agree that the Earth is only 6000 years old. They'd be wrong, too.

luckily the majority agree it isnt.

i dont recall using jesus as a referance.

You've not read the New Testament? Jesus WAS the entire New Testament. It's all about Jesus. Whose testament do you think they are referring to?

Of course.

Trolls always suddenly have class to go to, or an appointment to make, or a cig to smoke, just when they finally start to realize that nobody is buying what they're trying to sell.

my class cancelled so i'm back for a little longer now.

The fact that you cannot seem to recall anything more than one browser page behind, does not invalidate the point that was being made.

go back and see what i said. i never said "jesus told me so".

I see. So your sourceless argument is sufficient, but my sourced argument only works if I bring three sources. Address the source and stop relying on logical fallacies.Not at all, you're perfectly able to say that I need a source, or to say that my speculation is insufficient.

Yes, it does. It says that you cannot kill someone without taking reasonable steps to protect yourself in other ways, including not inviting someone in and then saying "leave, not fast enough *bang*" as is your claim.That's something of a misstatement of my argument. How much time must you give someone to comply?

Again, she had access to an abortion. She chose not to get one. That is tacit agreement to the pregnancy. You've said yourself that abortionists don't do late-term abortions. Simply because she agreed to the first eight months doesn't mean she must agree to the rest of it.

Yep, and an assault is not occurring here. You've already admitted that. Meanwhile, it explicitly says lethal self-defens when it means lethal self-defense. It doesn't here because it doesn't here. If a man punched me and I killed him, I would have to prove that I was either in imminent danger of dying or that I killed him by accident.And if she was to say that she simply meant to sever the umbilical cord, but the bullet accidentally killed the fetus?

And THAT is goldfishing. You've already admitted that this is not assault. Assault requires the attack to be illegal. This is not.Using a woman's body/internal organs against her will isn't illegal?

a thought experiment is when you use someones point in a different situation.

No, it isn't. That's called logic. That's not a thought experiment. A thought experiment is when you map out something in your head because you don't have real world examples and can't make one. When one uses real world examples that's a REAL experiment.


thats would you did. thought experiments are only good if you understand the persons point if of view in the alternate situation.

Ha. Amusing. See you want for your argument to not apply universally, but then you have to add something to your argument that makes it not apply in other situations. That's called logic. Start using it.


we dont like something we put in laws against it. people should follow the law, laws help us decide if should do something or not. making sure people follow laws is a different matter.
do you think we should legalise rape, so victims can raped closer to hospitals so the get treatment quicker? i dont.

Pardon? That's not even English.

I'm saying that that the reasons for making rape illegal are different than the ones you claim. See, that's how logic works. Reasoning should define where things apply and where they don't, not whim. Your claims are irrational and they are because you want us to ignore reason and act on your whime.

my class cancelled so i'm back for a little longer now.
As delighted as I'm sure we all are, perhaps you'd be better off spending more time in school or at the library, and less time on Teh Internets. I could recommend some books about human reproduction that would be very illuminating for you.

As delighted as I'm sure we all are, perhaps you'd be better off spending more time in school or at the library, and less time on Teh Internets. I could recommend some books about human reproduction that would be very illuminating for you.

Must refrain. Must refrain. Must refrain.

I didn't say you were basing your arguments on religion... I think you misunderstand me.

By 'your Jesus argument', I mean the points you make about Jesus 'coming to change things' - a perspective which is pretty much entirely insupportable if you've ever actually READ the scripture. Since you clearly have not, it is not worth wasting my time debating 'your Jesus argument' with you.



And yet, ALL of your other 'arguments' have been shown to be false.

It seems to leave us with you accepting the religious arguments of others, rather than making your own decisions... and that's one of the more optimistic scenarios.



And you get to decide? Didn't you say you are not even a Catholic, yourself?

i said jesus came to change the faith, thats what i ment.
murder goes against major catholic teachings, thus anyone who murders is not a proper catholic, even if they go to church or work for the church. priest child abusers are not proper catholics either. using john 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=1%20john%203:18&version=31), one could argue that even good priests are not following the bible properly. depending which version of the bible you have. it has been altered by different groups.

Must refrain. Must refrain. Must refrain.
;)

...snip...
Or someone. In this case, the benefit of my opinion the child is not a point of debate. Were my opinion to be law, the child would be living, the benefit is clear.
...snip...

Your logic is quite wrong... Were your opinion law the child would be still dead, but the woman would be in prison (or could be sentenced to death).
Or... She could have proclaimed temporary mental instability and easily gone through the legislative net altogether (unless forced to be internated in a medical facility).
She is clearly instable since the method chosen to perform her abortion (it is technically still an abortion because the fetus was still inside her) had a clearly suicidal streak.
Also the fact that she tried to damage the child's father by accusing him of having shot her shows her instability.

IMO she shouldn't have been jailed because she didn't commit any crime (the text of the law states so and to commit a crime you have to infringe a law).
She should get some therapy though, because she clearly is deranged.

As a fellow person the only thing that i can do is to pity her.

Not at all, you're perfectly able to say that I need a source, or to say that my speculation is insufficient.

I have repeatedly asked you to offer proof that this is self-defense. You've not done so. Again, goldfishing.

That's something of a misstatement of my argument. How much time must you give someone to comply?

There isn't a defined amount of time. She would have to show that there would be a significant difference in the threat if she were to wait for some form of authority to deal with the situation. There wouldn't have been any difference in the threat had she waited. The threat only escalated because she shot herself.


You've said yourself that abortionists don't do late-term abortions. Simply because she agreed to the first eight months doesn't mean she must agree to the rest of it.

It wouldn't be a late-term abortion. It would be a removal of the living baby. It's called a c-section and they had to do it anyway, she just ensured that the baby wasn't living.


And if she was to say that she simply meant to sever the umbilical cord, but the bullet accidentally killed the fetus?

Self-defense is specifically defined just so people can't just 'say' anything. Otherwise, I could just randomly kill people and SAY I was defending myself. I must prove self-defense within reason.

Meanwhile, regardless of if it were accidental, she must again show the difference here if she were to wait. And the only difference here is that had she waited she would have been in significantly LESS danger and the baby would have survived.

Using a woman's body/internal organs against her will isn't illegal?

Nope. Pregnancy is not illegal. Your comparison here would be like if a guy had a piercing and she agreed to have sex with him. He gets stuck and she tells him that if he doesn't leave she's going to shoot him. Now, she could wait and have him removed at the hospital, but instead she shoots him. The baby couldn't leave. It was stuck. She could have had it removed at a hospital and the baby would not have resisted such a measure, but instead she chose to shoot the baby that could not leave under its own volition.

i said jesus came to change the faith, thats what i ment.
murder goes against major catholic teachings, thus anyone who murders is not a proper catholic, even if they go to church or work for the church. priest child abusers are not proper catholics either. using john 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=1%20john%203:18&version=31), one could argue that even good priests are not following the bible properly. depending which version of the bible you have. it has been altered by different groups.

Of course, I could use the Galatians Defense, to point out that ANYONE who follows the 'old law' is not a proper follower of Christ, anyway.

Thus - anyone who still clings to the old 'Ten Commandments' approach, or the Levitical ideas about things like sexuality, is wasting their time, is engaging in heretical teaching, and is merely PRETENDING to follow Jesus.

The passage would be Galatians 5:2-4, by the way: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. "

;)

You know me so well...

You do realize of course that evolution causes spontaneous abortion when a women is not capable of raising a child (of course nature can only tell when she is not capable of raising a child in natural ways). Nature can't account for being poor so it aborts the child is the women is undernourished or stressed or any number of less than ideal conditions. Now, we have the ability to analyze further less than ideal conditions and react as such. Nature tells us that children shouldn't be raised in less than adequate circumstances. Nature and evolution ENCOURAGE abortion, not prevent it.

stop being silly. death is an unfortunate part of life. and we try to prevent it. we is why we evolved with intelligence, to help ourselfves do what we are naturally suppose to do. live and promote life.

Your logic is quite wrong... Were your opinion law the child would be still dead, but the woman would be in prison (or could be sentenced to death).

Pardon? I never suggested that the woman be in prison. I simply suggested that she not be permitted to shoot a fetus. The point was that were the law followed (which is what we were talking about) the child would be alive.

However, by your logic, I shouldn't make rape illegal because the rape victims would still be raped. The only thing that would be different is that the rapist would be in prison or could be sentenced to death.

This woman should not be in prison. She was clearly ill.

Or... She could have proclaimed temporary mental instability and easily gone through the legislative net altogether (unless forced to be internated in a medical facility).

It doesn't appear the instability was temporary. She needs help something I've said repeatedly. Something you obviously couldn't be arsed to read.

She is clearly unstable since the method chosen to perform her abortion (it is technically still an abortion because the fetus was still inside her) had a clearly suicidal streak.
Also the fact that she tried to damage the child's father by accusing him of having shot her shows her instability.

Agreed.

IMO she shouldn't have been jailed because she didn't commit any crime (the text of the law states so and to commit a crime you have to infringe a law).
She should get some therapy though, because she clearly is deranged.

As a fellow person the only thing that i can do is to pity her.

Good, then we agree. Of course, you'd know that if you'd actually read my statements. She shouldn't be jailed. She is clearly deranged. She is pitiful. I've said all of that explicitly. But, hey, what difference does that make, right? Just so long as you say your bit while making it look like it actually replies to me.

As a fellow person another thing you could have done is, oh, I don't know, read the thread BEFORE you replied.

stop being silly. death is an unfortunate part of life. and we try to prevent it. we is why we evolved with intelligence, to help ourselfves do what we are naturally suppose to do. live and promote life.

That doesn't address my arguments at all. People keep asking me if you're serious. Now, I'm starting to wonder. I know people like you exist, but they're usually self-aware enough to not shout it out to the world.

stop being silly. death is an unfortunate part of life. and we try to prevent it. we is why we evolved with intelligence, to help ourselfves do what we are naturally suppose to do. live and promote life.
And now you're totally changing track again.

You were talking about evolution and nature. Evolution and nature include death. Evolution and nature don't say anything about death being "unfortunate." Human beings frequently battle AGAINST nature as we try to prevent our deaths.

It is natural for humans to die. It is also natural for abortion to occur. The majority of human pregnancies abort, even when medical abortion is not available in any form. Abortion is natural, and has been upheld through millions of years of evolution.

stop being silly. death is an unfortunate part of life. and we try to prevent it. we is why we evolved with intelligence, to help ourselfves do what we are naturally suppose to do. live and promote life.

How is death an 'unfortunate part of life'?

This is wrong on SO many levels it's not even funny.

Like - the fact that it isn't part of 'life' at all... definitively.

Or - if it were not for death, my breakfast would wriggle more...

Is our purpose to live? Biologically, I mean? No - that is a side effect... our WHOLE biological purpose, is to continue the transmission of some fairly complex molecules. That's it.

You've not read the New Testament? Jesus WAS the entire New Testament. It's all about Jesus. Whose testament do you think they are referring to?

this is an example of putting words in my mouth. you cannot convince me to your poit of view by pretending to me i said something i didnt which is off topic.
i didnt say jesus wasnt in the new testiment, thats absurd. as i keep saying, i dont have my opinions because jesus said so, but i argee with most catholic vaules, they are not perfect but pretty good.

Wait...it was justified to shoot her self in the gut for an abortion? I think she should be in the loonie pin, not because of wanting an abortion but shooting her self in the gut...

Right...why not just wait until after giving birth? How is the baby gonna come out at this stage...num nut...

this is an example of putting words in my mouth. you cannot convince me to your poit of view by pretending to me i said something i didnt which is off topic.
i didnt say jesus wasnt in the new testiment, thats absurd. as i keep saying, i dont have my opinions because jesus said so, but i argee with most catholic vaules, they are not perfect but pretty good.

And yet - the religious argument is the ONLY one you've even mentioned, that HAS stood up (at all) to scrutiny.

Maybe you want to change horses?

I have repeatedly asked you to offer proof that this is self-defense. You've not done so. Again, goldfishing.I can't offer proof that it was self-defense because I wasn't there when the incident happened, nor was I reading her mind. If there had been a self-defense trial there might be enough evidence to do so. However, there is enough evidence to give the appearance that it was self-defense, if you chose to look at it that way.

There isn't a defined amount of time. She would have to show that there would be a significant difference in the threat if she were to wait for some form of authority to deal with the situation. There wouldn't have been any difference in the threat had she waited. The threat only escalated because she shot herself. So then I'm obligated to wait for the police to remove my guest who's overstayed his welcome but I am unsure if he'll become violent or not?

It wouldn't be a late-term abortion. It would be a removal of the living baby. It's called a c-section and they had to do it anyway, she just ensured that the baby wasn't living.They do 'partial-birth abortions', just for whatever reason they have the requirement that the woman's life must be in danger. That option wasn't open to her.

Self-defense is specifically defined just so people can't just 'say' anything. Otherwise, I could just randomly kill people and SAY I was defending myself. I must prove self-defense within reason.True, but does this hold if there is no evidence that indicates that she isn't telling the truth?

Nope. Pregnancy is not illegal. Your comparison here would be like if a guy had a piercing and she agreed to have sex with him. He gets stuck and she tells him that if he doesn't leave she's going to shoot him. Now, she could wait and have him removed at the hospital, but instead she shoots him. The baby couldn't leave. It was stuck. She could have had it removed at a hospital and the baby would not have resisted such a measure, but instead she chose to shoot the baby that could not leave under its own volition.I was thinking of a comparison more along the lines of consenting to sex eight times, but not consenting to it the ninth, and the guy attempts to go ahead with it anyway.

No, it isn't. That's called logic. That's not a thought experiment. A thought experiment is when you map out something in your head because you don't have real world examples and can't make one. When one uses real world examples that's a REAL experiment.


actually, many philosophers do it that way. it is also logical.
not that it matters but i'm still curious what your age is and what do for a living, if you dont mind me asking. not that it makes your view anymore or less credible. i'm want to know how you think. cause what you are saying doesnt make sense to me. if could understand how you think, i can alter my wording so you can understand how i think. so you can stop making claims that i said things i didnt.

So then I'm obligated to wait for the police to remove my guest who's overstayed his welcome but I am unsure if he'll become violent or not?


Unless you are arguing that the foetus in question was going to attack someone, I think you are way beyond the realistic bounds of a 'parallel' here...


They do 'partial-birth abortions'...

Outside the Republican Manifesto? Can you give a (reasonably reliable would be nice) cite?

I'm under the impression that PBA is pretty much a nonsense term, since it is usually a process used on already-dead entities, or those that would be killed by a delivery.

Unless you are arguing that the foetus in question was going to attack someone, I think you are way beyond the realistic bounds of a 'parallel' here...I'm saying that the fetus sustaining itself from the woman's energy and using her body is the attack, admittedly probably not a lethal one.

Outside the Republican Manifesto? Can you give a (reasonably reliable would be nice) cite?

I'm under the impression that PBA is pretty much a nonsense term, since it is usually a process used on already-dead entities, or those that would be killed by a delivery.I used the term in single-quotes because I'm not sure it exists either; nonetheless, they do use some procedure on late-term fetuses which was unavailable to this woman.

That doesn't address my arguments at all. People keep asking me if you're serious. Now, I'm starting to wonder. I know people like you exist, but they're usually self-aware enough to not shout it out to the world.

dont worry i do actually exist, luckily my parents lived in a country were abortion was illegal, horray for me.:)

I can't offer proof that it was self-defense because I wasn't there when the incident happened, nor was I reading her mind. If there had been a self-defense trial there might be enough evidence to do so. However, there is enough evidence to give the appearance that it was self-defense, if you chose to look at it that way.

Nice try, little buddy. You're claiming that this is self-defense by definition. Show that your arguments for self-defense actually fit the legal definition. You've not done so. I've been clear in what support I've asked for. You've instead admitted you don't know anything about the law, which explains why your arguments are so ignorant of it.

So then I'm obligated to wait for the police to remove my guest who's overstayed his welcome but I am unsure if he'll become violent or not?

Yes. That's absolutely correct. You're not permitted to just open fire. There has to be a credible and immediate threat.


They do 'partial-birth abortions', just for whatever reason they have the requirement that the woman's life must be in danger. That option wasn't open to her.

They also do c-sections. And that was available to her. In a partial birth abortion, one life takes precedence over the other because the situation requires it. In this situation, no one had to die. I'm not sure you're even trying anymore. You seem desperate to try to equivocate.


True, but does this hold if there is no evidence that indicates that she isn't telling the truth?

Nope. However, it's not reasonable to assume that she is. Suggesting self-defense with no evidence for self-defense does not create REASONABLE doubt.

I was thinking of a comparison more along the lines of consenting to sex eight times, but not consenting to it the ninth, and the guy attempts to go ahead with it anyway.

Yes, of course you were, because you can't respond to the comparison I made. In the ninth time, the guy has a choice. He doesn't have to do it. He can leave whenever he likes. He is willfully committing an illegal act, a felony. The baby is doing no such thing. The baby is stuck, willing to stop the act, willing to leave (or at least not resistent to it) but unable to do so. You're making my argument for me. You're admitting that in order for this to be worthy of self-defense, this guy getting stuck isn't enough. The fact that his parts are using hers isn't enough if he's not doing it willfully and if she consented when it started. You have to change the scenario to be a willful, illegal assault. Thank you for pointing out the very flaw in YOUR argument.

dont worry i do actually exist, luckily my parents lived in a country were abortion was illegal, horray for me.:)

I'm not talking about your existence. I'm talking about the existence of the person you are presenting on these forums. And I find it amusing that you just basically said that if abortion was legal your parents wouldn't have wanted you.

... luckily my parents lived in a country were abortion was illegal...

Surely that is only relevent if they WANTED to abort you?

I'm saying that the fetus sustaining itself from the woman's energy and using her body is the attack, admittedly probably not a lethal one.

And your argument fails. No credible and imminent threat. No self-defense. I'm glad that you finally admitted it.

I used the term in single-quotes because I'm not sure it exists either; nonetheless, they do use some procedure on late-term fetuses which was unavailable to this woman.

It needn't be. She need only have a c-section, which most certainly IS available to this woman.

Surely that is only relevent if they WANTED to abort you?

Well to be fair GnI, knowing what you know now...wouldn't you have wanted to as well?

Surely that is only relevent if they WANTED to abort you?
Hey, he knows that he's got to force women to have sex with him and force them to bear children, otherwise they would never choose to do so. It follows logically that he assumes his mother only had him because she had no alternative.

I'm saying that the fetus sustaining itself from the woman's energy and using her body is the attack, admittedly probably not a lethal one.


But, the argument can be made that this 'attack' is one she invited?

If I ask a cheerleader to spank me, and she spanks me... what should be the legal ramifications of that 'attack'?


I used the term in single-quotes because I'm not sure it exists either; nonetheless, they do use some procedure on late-term fetuses which was unavailable to this woman.

And - as I say, I believe this procedure in question (which only reached legislation level as a thin-end-of-the-wedge gesture anyway) is unlikely to have been carried out on a functional baby.

It was, then, unavailable to her, only because neither of them were dead...?

And yet - the religious argument is the ONLY one you've even mentioned, that HAS stood up (at all) to scrutiny.

Maybe you want to change horses?

you are really annoying. i will eventually ahve to go back and start qouting myself.
i have said that i think i should have multiple children with as many healthy women as posible, abortion interferes with my plans.

Well to be fair GnI, knowing what you know now...wouldn't you have wanted to as well?

Only if I got to fry the foetus in black-bean sauce and serve it on a bed of Chicken-Fried Rice....

Or maybe make dumplings out of it.... (kudos points available for film reference).

i have said that i think i should have multiple children with as many healthy women as posible, abortion interferes with my plans.
Yes, that's true. Of course, the fact that a great many healthy women don't want to have sex with you will also interfere. I guess that means that a woman's right to say "no" to sex interferes with your plans as much as her right to have an abortion does.

But, the argument can be made that this 'attack' is one she invited?

If I ask a cheerleader to spank me, and she spanks me... what should be the legal ramifications of that 'attack'?



Only if you believe that by having sex is consent for pregnancy. Because your analogy doesn't work, it's like the aformentioned cheerleader whacking you with a golf club instead of what you asked for.

It isn't, by the way, one who consents to sex consents to sex, not pregnancy.

you are really annoying. i will eventually ahve to go back and start qouting myself.
i have said that i think i should have multiple children with as many healthy women as posible, abortion interferes with my plans.

so does the word "no"...so...ya know...better bring the gag...

....eww I disgusted myself there a bit.

I'm not talking about your existence. I'm talking about the existence of the person you are presenting on these forums. And I find it amusing that you just basically said that if abortion was legal your parents wouldn't have wanted you.

i'm a not time traveling psycic, so i cannot say if that is so or not.

this is an example of putting words in my mouth. you cannot convince me to your poit of view by pretending to me i said something i didnt which is off topic.
i didnt say jesus wasnt in the new testiment, thats absurd. as i keep saying, i dont have my opinions because jesus said so, but i argee with most catholic vaules, they are not perfect but pretty good.

Amusing. I didn't put words in your mouth, little buddy. I was asking questions. See you said that you listen to the New Testament. I acted surprised that use Jesus as an argument. You said you never said that. I pointed out that Jesus is the New Testament. The New Testament is His argument. Testament refers to His Testament. And I asked if you were aware of that. That not only clearly acknowledges that you did NOT say anything about Jesus, but it acknowledges that you don't know that when you claim the New Testament as a source you are implicitly claiming Jesus as a source.

You keep claiming I'm misquoting you or not actually addressing your arguments. It seems that you're doing so because your familiarity with English isn't very good. I'm not trying to insult you, but you've repeatedly just completely misused terms, you keep entirely missing the point of what I've said, you keep saying things and claiming that you said something else, even once quoting yourself saying something you never said. I originally thought you were just squirming, but is it possible this is simply a language problem?

you are really annoying. i will eventually ahve to go back and start qouting myself.
i have said that i think i should have multiple children with as many healthy women as posible, abortion interferes with my plans.

This is not a valid reason... unless you are going to accept Jocabia's scenario of legalised ass-rape as equally valid.

If you have twisted fantasies about reducing women to the status of brood-mares, that is not my problem. On the other hand, if you think that is a good enough reason to stop women having the power of attorney over their own vaginas, then we are going to conflict.

Hey, he knows that he's got to force women to have sex with him and force them to bear children, otherwise they would never choose to do so. It follows logically that he assumes his mother only had him because she had no alternative.

never said anything about forcing women to have sex with me. i just encourage them to. i'm ever so charming.;)

Only if you believe that by having sex is consent for pregnancy. Because your analogy doesn't work, it's like the aformentioned cheerleader whacking you with a golf club instead of what you asked for.

It isn't, by the way, one who consents to sex consents to sex, not pregnancy.

It isn't. However, in this case, the woman was nine months pregnant. When abortion is legal, staying pregnant is a consent to pregnancy.

so does the word "no"...so...ya know...better bring the gag...

....eww I disgusted myself there a bit.
At least this anti-choicer is honest.

A woman's right to choose interferes with his plans to breed up lots of babies. He wants babies, so he should get them. Whether or not the women in question are consenting to this process is beside the point.

i'm a not time traveling psycic, so i cannot say if that is so or not.

Point proving. This barely resembles English.

Yes, that's true. Of course, the fact that a great many healthy women don't want to have sex with you will also interfere. I guess that means that a woman's right to say "no" to sex interferes with your plans as much as her right to have an abortion does.

want they want can change. so i use my charm.

never said anything about forcing women to have sex with me. i just encourage them to. i'm ever so charming.;)

I doubt that...but hey, it's your argument, as long as you plan on eliminating the woman's right not to carry a fetus to term inside her, you might as well elimiate her right to say no, after all, it's interfering with your plans to breed the master race, or something...

and if all you got is your charm...I suspect it's been a while. Maybe that's why you're so edgy.

Only if you believe that by having sex is consent for pregnancy. Because your analogy doesn't work, it's like the aformentioned cheerleader whacking you with a golf club instead of what you asked for.

It isn't, by the way, one who consents to sex consents to sex, not pregnancy.

Oh, I entirely agree. Sex is sex, and pregnancy is something that can happen when you 'do' that thing. Somewhere among my 96 million posts, there are arguments EXACTLY along those lines.

The 'consent' that I was thinking of, was more along the lines of NOT aborting when it would have been practicable.

never said anything about forcing women to have sex with me. i just encourage them to. i'm ever so charming.;)
Yes, I'm sure it's just raining naked ladies in your crib.

Just remember not to mention the whole "you bitchez gots to bear my seed whether you like it or not" thing until AFTER you slip the roofies in their drinks. Otherwise they're liable to just throw it in your face, and then how will you ever "charm" them into the sack?

It isn't. However, in this case, the woman was nine months pregnant. When abortion is legal, staying pregnant is a consent to pregnancy.

Fair enough, EXCEPT for the singular point raised at the beginning of this thread which was that her actions were, in fact, legal.

never said anything about forcing women to have sex with me. i just encourage them to. i'm ever so charming.;)

Then why does everyone want to abort your spawn?

It isn't. However, in this case, the woman was nine months pregnant. When abortion is legal, staying pregnant is a consent to pregnancy.

Exactly - beat me to it.

want they want can change. so i use my charm.
No means no, genius. It doesn't mean, "Charm me, you handsome prince!"

Nice try, little buddy. You're claiming that this is self-defense by definition. Show that your arguments for self-defense actually fit the legal definition. You've not done so. I've been clear in what support I've asked for. You've instead admitted you don't know anything about the law, which explains why your arguments are so ignorant of it.Yes, I admit that the law about self-defense wasn't what I thought it was. Nonetheless, I don't believe that I am wrong.

Yes. That's absolutely correct. You're not permitted to just open fire. There has to be a credible and immediate threat. Does the law limit what it defines a credible and immediate threat to be only the threat of the loss of life? Personally, I would consider the fact that someone was unwilling to leave to be a credible threat, but if the law does not do so it would explain my confusion.

They also do c-sections. And that was available to her. In a partial birth abortion, one life takes precedence over the other because the situation requires it. In this situation, no one had to die. I'm not sure you're even trying anymore. You seem desperate to try to equivocate.I suppose that's because I don't view the fetus as a living human being and the self-defense argument only applied if it was a living human being, therefore I see no difference between a late-term and an early-term abortion.

Nope. However, it's not reasonable to assume that she is. Suggesting self-defense with no evidence for self-defense does not create REASONABLE doubt.Why should there be any doubt at all unless there is evidence for it?

Yes, of course you were, because you can't respond to the comparison I made.Well, all right, if you insist. If the guy got stuck in her, it wouldn't be acceptable for her to kill him. However, if he was lying on top of her and she didn't like this for whatever reason, she would be justified in trying to roll over so that his weight isn't on her. If, in the process of rolling over, they fell off the bed and be broke his neck and died, the process would be just.
I don't see a way for the law to prove that her killing the fetus was an accident. Therefore, it would be absurd to find her guilty of a crime, just as it would be absurd to find the woman in the above scenario guility of a crime.

Oh, I entirely agree. Sex is sex, and pregnancy is something that can happen when you 'do' that thing. Somewhere among my 96 million posts, there are arguments EXACTLY along those lines.

The 'consent' that I was thinking of, was more along the lines of NOT aborting when it would have been practicable.

Jocobia's argument, that you consent to the pregnancy as long as you remain pregnant when it is legal to get an abortion i think is the more pragmatic answer, as "practicable" is somewhat poorly defined.

Again however it falls apart on the realization that what she did was actually legal.

Amusing. I didn't put words in your mouth, little buddy. I was asking questions. See you said that you listen to the New Testament. I acted surprised that use Jesus as an argument. You said you never said that. I pointed out that Jesus is the New Testament. The New Testament is His argument. Testament refers to His Testament. And I asked if you were aware of that. That not only clearly acknowledges that you did NOT say anything about Jesus, but it acknowledges that you don't know that when you claim the New Testament as a source you are implicitly claiming Jesus as a source.

You keep claiming I'm misquoting you or not actually addressing your arguments. It seems that you're doing so because your familiarity with English isn't very good. I'm not trying to insult you, but you've repeatedly just completely misused terms, you keep entirely missing the point of what I've said, you keep saying things and claiming that you said something else, even once quoting yourself saying something you never said. I originally thought you were just squirming, but is it possible this is simply a language problem?

i have a problem with understanding what you are saying. again i'm going to say,
I'M NOT BASING MY VIEWS ON RELIGION, I JUST HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THE BIBLE MOSTLY.

I doubt that...but hey, it's your argument, as long as you plan on eliminating the woman's right not to carry a fetus to term inside her, you might as well elimiate her right to say no, after all, it's interfering with your plans to breed the master race, or something...

and if all you got is your charm...I suspect it's been a while. Maybe that's why you're so edgy.

Harsh.

I'm not saying 'unfair', mind...

I was thinking of a comparison more along the lines of consenting to sex eight times, but not consenting to it the ninth, and the guy attempts to go ahead with it anyway.
Yes, of course you were, because you can't respond to the comparison I made. In the ninth time, the guy has a choice. He doesn't have to do it. He can leave whenever he likes. He is willfully committing an illegal act, a felony. The baby is doing no such thing. The baby is stuck, willing to stop the act, willing to leave (or at least not resistent to it) but unable to do so. You're making my argument for me. You're admitting that in order for this to be worthy of self-defense, this guy getting stuck isn't enough. The fact that his parts are using hers isn't enough if he's not doing it willfully and if she consented when it started. You have to change the scenario to be a willful, illegal assault. Thank you for pointing out the very flaw in YOUR argument.

Hey, look, everyone, I finally nailed Jello to the wall. We all know how difficult that is.

Then why does everyone want to abort your spawn?
Because they're just silly womenfolks who don't know what they really want. They think they don't want to have sex with Gorias, but he knows how to "charm" them!

And when it comes time to "charm" them into carrying a pregnancy to term, why, what could be more charming than a romantic bit of legislation banning them from choosing what kind of medical care they receive?

This is not a valid reason... unless you are going to accept Jocabia's scenario of legalised ass-rape as equally valid.

If you have twisted fantasies about reducing women to the status of brood-mares, that is not my problem. On the other hand, if you think that is a good enough reason to stop women having the power of attorney over their own vaginas, then we are going to conflict.

AGAIN I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FORCING RAPE!!!

i have a problem with understanding what you are saying. again i'm going to say,
I'M NOT BASING MY VIEWS ON RELIGION, I JUST HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THE BIBLE MOSTLY.

Read "I have no LOGICAL arguments of my own, but someone told me the Bible might... but I've not read THAT, either", yes?

i have a problem with understanding what you are saying. again i'm going to say,
I'M NOT BASING MY VIEWS ON RELIGION, I JUST HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THE BIBLE MOSTLY.

Nevermind. I'm trying to explain to you that I am replying to exactly that. You simply aren't understanding me. I know it's not a religious argument. It would actually make sense if it were a religious argument. YOUR argument has no basis other than the one you admit, that you can't get women to agree to have your children so you need to have the law force them to do so.

But, the argument can be made that this 'attack' is one she invited?

If I ask a cheerleader to spank me, and she spanks me... what should be the legal ramifications of that 'attack'?Yes, that is what Jocabia argued. I am arguing that while the attack was invited, it was unwanted at some point. If you were unable to communicate your request to the cheerleader to stop, and therefore she didn't, would you be obligated to keep trying to communicate, or would you have the option of trying to stop it physically?

And - as I say, I believe this procedure in question (which only reached legislation level as a thin-end-of-the-wedge gesture anyway) is unlikely to have been carried out on a functional baby.

It was, then, unavailable to her, only because neither of them were dead...?It was unavailable for that reason or a similar one, yes.

Hey, look, everyone, I finally nailed Jello to the wall. We all know how difficult that is.

Oooh, I wish I'd seen that...

Wait, maybe you mean something different...

AGAIN I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FORCING RAPE!!!

Again, you're not reading him properly. He's saying that your arguments apply equally to rape. He is not saying that you said that, just that it is a logical extension of what you said. Follow the logic, m'boy.

Point proving. This barely resembles English.

how else can phrase that i cannot go backwards in time and read peoples thoughts? i would like to, that would be cool. i would so much better at poker.
again you going off topic.

AGAIN I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FORCING RAPE!!!
A person who tries to force me to participate in the first part of the reproductive process (sexual intercourse) is called a rapist. I see no reason why I should use a different term for somebody who tries to force me to participate in a later stage of the reproductive process (i.e. pregnancy). The thinking behind both is the same: the idea that somebody else is entitled to use my body against my wishes.

Does the law limit what it defines a credible and immediate threat to be only the threat of the loss of life? Personally, I would consider the fact that someone was unwilling to leave to be a credible threat, but if the law does not do so it would explain my confusion.

Depends on your state. Generally there's the idea of "disproportionate force" in which the force you use has to be proportionate to the threat against you. Somoene not wanting to get out of your living room is not a proportionate threat to blowing his head away.

Also it's important to note that in most jurisdictions it only needs to be a "reasonable belief". Which is to say you can be 100% WRONG about the threat to you, and had actually been in total safety, as long as you reasonably BELIEVED yourself to be in a situation which warrented lethal self defense.

Why should there be any doubt at all unless there is evidence for it?

Self defense is an affirmative defense (or affirmative justification depending on jurisdiction). Affirmative defenses must actually be proven. Things like diminished mental capacity (insanity defense) and defense of self must be demonstrated to be true. It's actually the reverse of the traditional legal argument that guilt must be proven. Generally in issues of affirmative defenses, your guild is obvious, and proven, but you then must prove a defensable reason for it.

In other words, say you're charged with murder. You can argue either a) you didn't murder the person, in which case the state has to prove you did, OR b) you DID murder the person, which takes the burden off the state, but then attempt to prove and affirmative defense.

Most defenses are "I didn't do it", and the state has to prove you did. Self defense falls into the catagory of "ok I did it, BUT..." and then you have to prove the "but"

Yes, that is what Jocabia argued. I am arguing that while the attack was invited, it was unwanted at some point. If you were unable to communicate your request to the cheerleader to stop, and therefore she didn't, would you be obligated to keep trying to communicate, or would you have the option of trying to stop it physically?

It was unavailable for that reason or a similar one, yes.

You'd not be allowed to shoot her. Your life is not in imminent or credible danger and she is not committing a crime.

AGAIN I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FORCING RAPE!!!

All in capital letters? You MUST be right!

I didn't say you did say forcing rape.

I did say that you DID suggest women should be compelled to bear your seed, for the simple purpose that YOU think it would be a good idea to bunny out a few dupes.

Personally, I think a woman should get to chose what comes out of (or in) her genitals.

I doubt that...but hey, it's your argument, as long as you plan on eliminating the woman's right not to carry a fetus to term inside her, you might as well elimiate her right to say no, after all, it's interfering with your plans to breed the master race, or something...

and if all you got is your charm...I suspect it's been a while. Maybe that's why you're so edgy.

i'm not listing reasons why i think i'm a good catch. i use charm to get things i'm being refused. i've toldc by alot of people, that i am the most charming and polite person they have ever met. i dont buy girls drinks in bars. they buy mine.

Personally, I think a woman should get to chose what comes out of (or in) her genitals.
And, personally, I see no difference between a person who tries to force an unwanted something into my genitals and a person who wants to force an unwanted something out of my genitals.

My reproductive organs do not belong to anybody else, born or unborn. I get to decide what my reproductive organs will and will not do. It's as simple as that.

Because they're just silly womenfolks who don't know what they really want. They think they don't want to have sex with Gorias, but he knows how to "charm" them!

And when it comes time to "charm" them into carrying a pregnancy to term, why, what could be more charming than a romantic bit of legislation banning them from choosing what kind of medical care they receive?

Hell, it's working on me... that silver-tongued devil has me just wetting my panties for a chance to be compelled by the legal system to carry to term an unwanted by-product of 36 seconds of 'work'...

Depends on your state. Generally there's the idea of "disproportionate force" in which the force you use has to be proportionate to the threat against you. Somoene not wanting to get out of your living room is not a proportionate threat to blowing his head away.

Also it's important to note that in most jurisdictions it only needs to be a "reasonable belief". Which is to say you can be 100% WRONG about the threat to you, and had actually been in total safety, as long as you reasonably BELIEVED yourself to be in a situation which warrented lethal self defense.

Yes, but that reasonable belief also has to be proven and cannot be here. And that is exactly the point. Thank you.


Self defense is an affirmative defense (or affirmative justification depending on jurisdiction). Affirmative defenses must actually be proven. Things like diminished mental capacity (insanity defense) and defense of self must be demonstrated to be true. It's actually the reverse of the traditional legal argument that guilt must be proven. Generally in issues of affirmative defenses, your guild is obvious, and proven, but you then must prove a defensable reason for it.

In other words, say you're charged with murder. You can argue either a) you didn't murder the person, in which case the state has to prove you did, OR b) you DID murder the person, which takes the burden off the state, but then attempt to prove and affirmative defense.

Most defenses are "I didn't do it", and the state has to prove you did. Self defense falls into the catagory of "ok I did it, BUT..." and then you have to prove the "but"

That's the point. In affirmative defenses, you cannot claim them without first admitting to the events. Thus absent your defense you ARE proven guilty. That puts the burden on you to prove you're innocent.

i'm not listing reasons why i think i'm a good catch. i use charm to get things i'm being refused. i've toldc by alot of people, that i am the most charming and polite person they have ever met. i dont buy girls drinks in bars. they buy mine.

Just keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yes, that is what Jocabia argued. I am arguing that while the attack was invited, it was unwanted at some point. If you were unable to communicate your request to the cheerleader to stop, and therefore she didn't, would you be obligated to keep trying to communicate, or would you have the option of trying to stop it physically?


For the sake of a parallel, our cheerleader should actually be doing nothing except existing... and should actually be isolated in such a way that I cannot communicate with her at all, though.

Which doesn't sound like a decent or logical reason to 'cap that ho'.

i'm not listing reasons why i think i'm a good catch. i use charm to get things i'm being refused. i've toldc by alot of people, that i am the most charming and polite person they have ever met. i dont buy girls drinks in bars. they buy mine.
It's probably your 12-inch cock. Or maybe your 6-figure salary. Or it could be the Viper you've got parked in your garage.

Don't worry, we all believe you.

Depends on your state. Generally there's the idea of "disproportionate force" in which the force you use has to be proportionate to the threat against you. Somoene not wanting to get out of your living room is not a proportionate threat to blowing his head away.

Also it's important to note that in most jurisdictions it only needs to be a "reasonable belief". Which is to say you can be 100% WRONG about the threat to you, and had actually been in total safety, as long as you reasonably BELIEVED yourself to be in a situation which warrented lethal self defense.Could the argument that childbirth is sometimes lethal be enough justification to use self-defense?

I think the sticking point between Jocabia and I is that he is fixated on what he peceives to be the lethality of the self-defense, whereas I am arguing that it was self-defense that simply happened to be lethal.

Self defense is an affirmative defense (or affirmative justification depending on jurisdiction). Affirmative defenses must actually be proven. Things like diminished mental capacity (insanity defense) and defense of self must be demonstrated to be true. It's actually the reverse of the traditional legal argument that guilt must be proven. Generally in issues of affirmative defenses, your guild is obvious, and proven, but you then must prove a defensable reason for it.

In other words, say you're charged with murder. You can argue either a) you didn't murder the person, in which case the state has to prove you did, OR b) you DID murder the person, which takes the burden off the state, but then attempt to prove and affirmative defense.

Most defenses are "I didn't do it", and the state has to prove you did. Self defense falls into the catagory of "ok I did it, BUT..." and then you have to prove the "but"Oh, that makes sense, I was thinking of the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, I forgot about the affirmative defenses.

And, personally, I see no difference between a person who tries to force an unwanted something into my genitals and a person who wants to force an unwanted something out of my genitals.

My reproductive organs do not belong to anybody else, born or unborn. I get to decide what my reproductive organs will and will not do. It's as simple as that.

Seems strangely logical to me... better legislate opposition to it, because logic just ain't gonna work.

Yes, but that reasonable belief also has to be proven and cannot be here. And that is exactly the point. Thank you.




That's the point. In affirmative defenses, you cannot claim them without first admitting to the events. Thus absent your defense you ARE proven guilty. That puts the burden on you to prove you're innocent.

Well I wasn't really making an argument one way or the other there, but merely clarifying legal semantics. If it helps you, ok..

It's probably your 12-inch cock. Or maybe your 6-figure salary. Or it could be the Viper you've got parked in your garage.

Don't worry, we all believe you.

dont be silly, i dont drive.

It's probably your 12-inch cock. Or maybe your 6-figure salary. Or it could be the Viper you've got parked in your garage.

Don't worry, we all believe you.

Hey! For all you know he DOES have a 12 fingered viper, 6 inches of celery and a one-inch...

Sorry, confused, what was it you said?

Yes, I admit that the law about self-defense wasn't what I thought it was. Nonetheless, I don't believe that I am wrong.

Does the law limit what it defines a credible and immediate threat to be only the threat of the loss of life? Personally, I would consider the fact that someone was unwilling to leave to be a credible threat, but if the law does not do so it would explain my confusion.

It certainly would explain your confusion. It also makes you wrong.

I suppose that's because I don't view the fetus as a living human being and the self-defense argument only applied if it was a living human being, therefore I see no difference between a late-term and an early-term abortion.

Why should there be any doubt at all unless there is evidence for it?

Well, all right, if you insist. If the guy got stuck in her, it wouldn't be acceptable for her to kill him. However, if he was lying on top of her and she didn't like this for whatever reason, she would be justified in trying to roll over so that his weight isn't on her. If, in the process of rolling over, they fell off the bed and be broke his neck and died, the process would be just.
I don't see a way for the law to prove that her killing the fetus was an accident. Therefore, it would be absurd to find her guilty of a crime, just as it would be absurd to find the woman in the above scenario guility of a crime.

See, again, you change the scenario. She didn't do something as benign as rolling over. She shot him. She used lethal force. That's clear. You're really squirming now.

dont be silly, i dont drive.
Oh, that's right, my bad. You fly your private jet whenever you need to get anywhere. Your big, long jumbo jet. Hop aboard, ladies! It's time for some CHARM!

Well I wasn't really making an argument one way or the other there, but merely clarifying legal semantics. If it helps you, ok..

It does. I don't need you to voice an opinion. The facts are on my side. This is not a case that could be compared to self-defense. All that need appear to prove that is, well, any and all information about the act and the definition of self-defense.

EDIT: In case there is any misunderstanding "I don't need you to voice an opinion" was just a reference to my recognition that you're not a cheerleader. You clarified the issue and given that his claims rely on a lack of clarification, it was helpful. Therefore making any assumptions about your position on the issue was unnecessary.

Happy, GnI

Oh, that's right, my bad. You fly your private jet whenever you need to get anywhere. Your big, long jumbo jet. Hop aboard, ladies! It's time for some CHARM!

no, i walk to most places. or bus. i dont have a plane, yet.

Could the argument that childbirth is sometimes lethal be enough justification to use self-defense?

No, the threat has to be credible, deadly, and immediate. Not only is the threat not immediate, but it is no more risky than the alternative (abortion tends to be just as risky as child birth, especially by BULLET).

I think the sticking point between Jocabia and I is that he is fixated on what he peceives to be the lethality of the self-defense, whereas I am arguing that it was self-defense that simply happened to be lethal.

The point your missing is that once your self defense manifests itself in a way where your intent is to take the life of the person threatening you, it's not just "simple" self defense any more. THink of it as "super duper self defense". Once your self defense manifests itself in an attempt to take the life of the attacker, the rules change, a LOT. It's no longer "the guy was pushing me so I punched him", but when there is an intent to take the life of the person you believe to be threatening you, the rules change.

Perhaps I should use a legal term. When your actions result in the death of another person as a result of your reasonable belief that your life is in danger it's no longer "self defense" and calling it such is not proper. It is more proper to call it "justifiable homicide", which is really what "self defense with the intent to kill" should be refered to as.

Oh, that makes sense, I was thinking of the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, I forgot about the affirmative defenses.


Which exactly what self defense/justifiable homicide is.

i'm not listing reasons why i think i'm a good catch. i use charm to get things i'm being refused. i've toldc by alot of people, that i am the most charming and polite person they have ever met. i dont buy girls drinks in bars. they buy mine.

Women tell you no, and you charm them into doing things they don't want to do. You must be so proud. For my money, I'd prefer to hook up with women that, you know, like me and want to do things so they never actually feel the need to refuse. But, hey, I'm just a guy who believes people have a right to their own bodies, what do you expect?

no, i walk to most places. or bus. i dont have a plane, yet.

oh a bus pass, I'm sure that'll impress the ladies. "Don't worry babe, the 90 cent trip back to my place is on me!"

oh a bus pass, I'm sure that'll impress the ladies. "Don't worry babe, the 90 cent trip back to my place is on me!"

What if I chuck in pie and chips?

No, the threat has to be credible, deadly, and immediate. Not only is the threat not immediate, but it is no more risky than the alternative (abortion tends to be just as risky as child birth, especially by BULLET).



The point your missing is that once your self defense manifests itself in a way where your intent is to take the life of the person threatening you, it's not just "simple" self defense any more. THink of it as "super duper self defense". Once your self defense manifests itself in an attempt to take the life of the attacker, the rules change, a LOT. It's no longer "the guy was pushing me so I punched him", but when there is an intent to take the life of the person you believe to be threatening you, the rules change.

Perhaps I should use a legal term. When your actions result in the death of another person as a result of your reasonable belief that your life is in danger it's no longer "self defense" and calling it such is not proper. It is more proper to call it "justifiable homicide", which is really what "self defense with the intent to kill" should be refered to as.




Which exactly what self defense/justifiable homicide is.

Again, thank you. That's what I was trying to get across. His argument doesn't fail on opinion. It fails on the definition of self-defense. I don't assume your arguments show your preferences here, nor do they show mine. This is about a claim that this was self-defense and whether or not the definition of self-defense fits the arguments he is making.

Women tell you no, and you charm them into doing things they don't want to do. You must be so proud. For my money, I'd prefer to hook up with women that, you know, like me and want to do things so they never actually feel the need to refuse. But, hey, I'm just a guy who believes people have a right to their own bodies, what do you expect?

i change thier minds not force. i dont go "hey, want sex?" then beg then to if they say no. you can tell if a woman wants to sleep with you or not without asking. i dont know how you pick up women. i'm mostly on the bus person.

What if I chuck in pie and chips?

oh i go for women who offer me food.

i change thier minds not force. i dont go "hey, want sex?" then beg then to if they say no. you can tell if a woman wants to sleep with you or not without asking.
And there's the secret to the Gorias Charm:

Don't ask them. Just "know" that they want to sleep with you.

oh i go for women who offer me food.

Strangely, so do I.

you can tell if a woman wants to sleep with you or not without asking.

I wouldn't advise that as a legal defense....

No, the threat has to be credible, deadly, and immediate. Not only is the threat not immediate, but it is no more risky than the alternative (abortion tends to be just as risky as child birth, especially by BULLET).

The point your missing is that once your self defense manifests itself in a way where your intent is to take the life of the person threatening you, it's not just "simple" self defense any more. THink of it as "super duper self defense". Once your self defense manifests itself in an attempt to take the life of the attacker, the rules change, a LOT. It's no longer "the guy was pushing me so I punched him", but when there is an intent to take the life of the person you believe to be threatening you, the rules change.

Perhaps I should use a legal term. When your actions result in the death of another person as a result of your reasonable belief that your life is in danger it's no longer "self defense" and calling it such is not proper. It is more proper to call it "justifiable homicide", which is really what "self defense with the intent to kill" should be refered to as.


Which exactly what self defense/justifiable homicide is.I'm saying that it wasn't necessarily the intent to take the life of the person attacking her. How might she go about proving that she simply meant to sever the umbilical cord? Would it even be possible?

I'm saying that it wasn't necessarily the intent to take the life of the person attacking her. How might she go about proving that she simply meant to sever the umbilical cord? Would it even be possible?

All you have to establish is reasonable doubt, right?

How 'reasonable' is the 'doubt'?

i change thier minds not force. i dont go "hey, want sex?" then beg then to if they say no. you can tell if a woman wants to sleep with you or not without asking. i dont know how you pick up women. i'm mostly on the bus person.

You're proudly admitting to coersion. I don't 'pick up women'. I share my company with women and, if we strike up a bond, I might take it further. I don't have to coerce them. I respect their wishes. According to you, you assume what their wishes are (I'm sorry, not assume, read their minds) and then you coerce them into sleeping with you because it's what they REALLY want.

See, for me, I prefer to ask women what they want rather than tell them. But, there I go with that whole respecting rights thing again.

I wouldn't advise that as a legal defense....

if she takes off her clothes, and starts rubbing me, thats a good indecation.

All you have to establish is reasonable doubt, right?

How 'reasonable' is the 'doubt'?

Not in self-defense. In lethal self-defense you are admitting to homocide. There is no doubt. You have to prove reasonable that you were defending yourself and that the amount of force you used was unavoidable.

I'm saying that it wasn't necessarily the intent to take the life of the person attacking her. How might she go about proving that she simply meant to sever the umbilical cord? Would it even be possible?

You could make the argument (well, ok no you couldn't really since there's no legal doctrine that supports self defense against a fetus...but we're in the realm of hypotheticals here).

The problem becomes that ok, even if you could prove that, you might be off the hook for MURDER, but not for a self defense reason. Murder generally requires intent, so you wouldn't need to go a self defense rout here, you'd merely argue "I did not intend to kill".

Of course once you've testified that the bullet to your stomach was not intend to kill, merely sever the cord, you've now walked yourself into a reckless homicide/depraved indifference conviction.

Strangely, so do I.

wow, we are so alike.

I'm saying that it wasn't necessarily the intent to take the life of the person attacking her. How might she go about proving that she simply meant to sever the umbilical cord? Would it even be possible?

It wouldn't likely be possible and she would be on the hook because she used lethal force. She shot blindly directly at the baby. That she blindly hoped it would hit the umbellical cord is not a credible defense.

You're proudly admitting to coersion. I don't 'pick up women'. I share my company with women and, if we strike up a bond, I might take it further. I don't have to coerce them. I respect their wishes. According to you, you assume what their wishes are (I'm sorry, not assume, read their minds) and then you coerce them into sleeping with you because it's what they REALLY want.

See, for me, I prefer to ask women what they want rather than tell them. But, there I go with that whole respecting rights thing again.

when i repeat myself i'm going to type it in caps.
I DONT FORCE SEX!!!

how else can phrase that i cannot go backwards in time and read peoples thoughts? i would like to, that would be cool. i would so much better at poker.
again you going off topic.

That's not how you phrased it and you ability to form a sentence is a basic requirement of every debate.

You could make the argument (well, ok no you couldn't really since there's no legal doctrine that supports self defense of a fetus...but we're in the realm of hypotheticals here).

The problem becomes that ok, even if you could prove that, you might be off the hook for MURDER, but you have then admitted to firing a bullet at a living being (again we're making leaps into hypotheticals here) with the intent not to kill, but merely to sever the umbilical cord. You've now walked yourself right into a reckless homicide/depraved indifference conviction.Yes, I can see that, but the point of firing the bullet was to stop the source of the attack (the umbilical cord). I'm thinking of it as the same as trying to shoot the arm of someone wielding a knife, but hitting their chest, instead.

(Jocabia, I'm not ignoring you, but my responses to you would likely be rephrased versions of this, so I figured I'd just type it once.)

if she takes off her clothes, and starts rubbing me, thats a good indecation.

Not as good as 'yes'...

You could make the argument (well, ok no you couldn't really since there's no legal doctrine that supports self defense of a fetus...but we're in the realm of hypotheticals here).

The problem becomes that ok, even if you could prove that, you might be off the hook for MURDER, but you have then admitted to firing a bullet at a living being (again we're making leaps into hypotheticals here) with the intent not to kill, but merely to sever the umbilical cord. You've now walked yourself right into a reckless homicide/depraved indifference conviction.

We are talking about a hypothetical, because inside the womb, babies are not recognized as people. The core of this is he claimed that this was actually self-defense or comparable to it and I was explaining that it doesn't meet the criteria.

Not as good as 'yes'...

if i read her wrong and she tells me to stop, i stop.

when i repeat myself i'm going to type it in caps.
I DONT FORCE SEX!!!

I didn't say that you did. You do know what coerce means, yes? It doesn't mean force. It just means that you are using methods to convince a woman to have sex who doesn't want to. You've admitted to that.

wow, we are so alike.

Apart from the small details, like our opinions on whether or not women are put on the earth as vessels for the sacred male seed. And that little thing about knowing anything about biology.

We are talking about a hypothetical, because inside the womb, babies are not recognized as people. The core of this is he claimed that this was actually self-defense or comparable to it and I was explaining that it doesn't meet the criteria.Yes, we are talking about a hypothetical, because the initial discussion began with the hypothetical that the fetus was regarded as a person.

Apart from the small details, like our opinions on whether or not women are put on the earth as vessels for the sacred male seed. And that little thing about knowing anything about biology.

i admitt to have a low knowledge of biology. mine doesnt go much further than evolution and senses in collage.

Hey, Bottle, how is this working for you? He's charming your panties right off, huh?

Anyone else notice how this resembles the banter around the lunchroom table in high school? I don't think that is coincidence.

i admitt to have a low knowledge of biology. mine doesnt go much further than evolution and senses in collage.

Collage? You had a class on evolution and senses in collage?

Hey, Bottle, how is this working for you? He's charming your panties right off, huh?

Anyone else notice how this resembles the banter around the lunchroom table in high school? I don't think that is coincidence.

i think i'm nearly there.;)

but seriously. what do you do for a living? collage? 'high school'? magician?

Collage? You had a class on evolution and senses in collage?

yeah. evolution in science, senses in psychology.

i think i'm nearly there.;)

but seriously. what do you do for a living? collage? 'high school'? magician?

That's twice you couldn't spell college. Your grammar barely resembles English.

Until next Tuesday, I work for a research and consulting firm. I primarily manage projects, so I work in a lot of different sciences and areas.

As of next Wednesday, though, I'll be the owner of my own consulting firm (actually one of several owners).

Hey, Bottle, how is this working for you? He's charming your panties right off, huh?

I just can't resist the raw, manly charm of an anti-choice boy trolling for women to coerce into breeding for him.


Anyone else notice how this resembles the banter around the lunchroom table in high school? I don't think that is coincidence.
It's almost as though he hasn't learned Rule #1 of How To Be Cool:

People who actually are cool don't go around telling everybody how cool they are.

This applies equally to sex. People who are actually getting laid are usually far too busy getting laid to be going around telling everybody about how they're getting laid. Guys who are actually having successful encounters with
women don't get defensive and brag about how much the ladies love them.

i admitt to have a low knowledge of biology. mine doesnt go much further than evolution and senses in collage.
Collage, huh? Clown, or barber?

Seriously, though. People who can't spell "college" shouldn't try to pretend that they've got an education worth bragging about.

Yes, I can see that, but the point of firing the bullet was to stop the source of the attack (the umbilical cord). I'm thinking of it as the same as trying to shoot the arm of someone wielding a knife, but hitting their chest, instead.

(Jocabia, I'm not ignoring you, but my responses to you would likely be rephrased versions of this, so I figured I'd just type it once.)

OK, I see where you're going. Given this hypothetical fact pattern:

IF a fetus was defined as a person within the context of a self defense framework, and;

IF the fetus subsiding on the nutrients from the host mother was considered a threat within the doctrine of self defense, and;

IF her response to shooting a bullet through the umbilical cord was a reasonable method of eliminating the threat based on the facts as she reasonably believes them to be, and;

IF the result of accidentally shooting the fetus and killing it was an unavoidable potential concequence to her self defense which could not be minimized, mitigated or eliminated through other means that she reasonably believed to be equally effective at lessening the threat to her

THEN a self defense argument could work, yes. Unfortunatly to get this far you need to build a monuments of "ifs", not one of which is supported by any legal precident that I am aware of.

I just can't resist the raw, manly charm of an anti-choice boy trolling for women to coerce into breeding for him.


It's almost as though he hasn't learned Rule #1 of How To Be Cool:

People who actually are cool don't go around telling everybody how cool they are.

This applies equally to sex. People who are actually getting laid are usually far too busy getting laid to be going around telling everybody about how they're getting laid. Guys who are actually having successful encounters with
women don't get defensive and brag about how much the ladies love them.

Thank you. I thought that might sound better coming from a woman.