Prager University on Abortion.

[Jaecp]

Seriously? You complained that I had to rephrase it, but I did so because the whole point of the question had sailed clear over your head and your answer didn't even pertain to the question I actually asked. The point is still sailing over your head!
If you still can't see the similarities in various groups of people declaring groups of inconvenient people as "not really human" so that they can kill them, then I can't help you. It's really very basic. You're just dodging. If the answer is so obvious to you, why can't you just come out and say it?

I asked for evidence that that was what the Nazi's actually did. Others then happily chimed in with evidence that was the opposite of this. So far all anyone has mentioned the Nazi's actually doing is saying why the Jew's were bad, not "not really human" or whatever. You've yet to even begin to clear the argumentative hurdles involved to make your claim. This isn't a matter of points sailing over my head. You think abortion/pp is like Nazi's. I get your point. I think your point is dumb on the face of it and poorly supported otherwise. That you are unable to actually make your point to someone who doesn't immediately agree with you is a failure on your part, not mine, so perhaps a better use of your time would be to work on your rhetoric instead of complaining that I just don't understand you.

Basically, you're firing off a half cocked argument and complaining that I'm not playing along properly. Meh

[Psychic Missile]

The answer to your bolded part is called birth. Through this magical event life is able to exist in the first place for all mammals on this planet.

The problem is that waiting until birth requires forcing a woman to have her rights violated.

The first two sentences just seem to say that I don't understand, so the last sentence here in bold must be you trying to explain what I don't understand.

The word "alter" is defined as:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altering?s=t

1. to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify:

So the modification you define must be the pregnancy, the same pregnancy in which the parents are responsible for making in the first place.

It's like a person who eats a lot of fatty foods who then complains that their decisions have caused them to become fat and then complain that their body has been "altered" against their will.

If a woman aborts, it's because she didn't want to get pregnant or she no longer desires to be pregnant. This is a simple concept you should have no trouble grasping. People who have their rights violated do not deserve it because they didn't put forth the maximum effort and diligence to prevent it.

Which is like saying:

I have heard the hypothesis that people who are anti drink driving don't really believe that drink driving can cause murder, they just want to make sure that drunk drivers who drive face consequences. This argument doesn't help dispel that hypothesis

That's a poor analogy. In fact, all of your analogies have been poor. You should stop attempting them.

[Joel]

It is okay to harm someone if they violate another's rights and the only way to stop that violation is harm.

Only if the harm is proportional to the rights violation. (If someone tries to steal a pack of gum from you, it's probably not morally justified to shoot them in the head, even if that were the only way to stop the theft.)

And it's ridiculous to say that the baby is violating the mother's rights. Especially if the pregnancy is the result of consensual acts. Even in the case of rape, the only rights-violator is the rapist.

[mossrose]

Pregnancy causes harm and has the potential for harm. Pregnancy radically alters a woman's body, both temporarily and permanently. It can be life threatening or require surgery.

You've got to be joking.

You offend every human mother on the planet who has given birth. Are you married? Do you have children? Does your wife and mother agree with your sentiments?

I would love to ask your mother how she felt when she was pregnant with you.

[Psychic Missile]

I addressed your second assertion earlier in the thread: "It's hard to argue that the fetus is some sort of hostile invader who exists against the woman's will since the overwhelming majority of pregancies are the result of two people willingly engaging in an act that has a very good chance of causing the woman to become pregnant."

It's a basic fact that if you don't want to become pregnant then you shouldn't be having sex.

"If you don't want to be robbed then you shouldn't be carrying valuables." See how you're not making sense? Living involves taking risks, whether you're driving a car, shopping for groceries, or walking down the street. Bad things could happen in these scenarios. You could get into a car accident, you could buy contaminated food, you could be robbed. You're essentially arguing that any activity that might have some negative outcome should be avoided. That is simply impossible when those activities are essential or normalized for everyday living.

You say, "You already accept that sometimes one person's rights supersede another's."

In my world view, here are no rights that supersede another's right to life, and certainly not the desires of a woman who doesn't want to be inconvienced by a pregnancy.

You're basically arguing for graded absolutism, so if you want this ridiculous assertion to fly then you have to defend your belief that the right to life isn't the greatest good.

The right to life is the most valuable right, and should only be violated as a last resort in self defense. I'm going to give you three examples which I think will incline you to agree.

Do you think it morally acceptable that Elisabeth Fritzl kill her father?

Do you think it morally acceptable that a captive in a bank robbery shoots dead the robber?

Do you think it morally acceptable that person A kills person B for trying to forcibly remove their kidney for person B's sick parent?

And this one is based on understanding your philosophy more:

Do you think it morally acceptable for a police officer to shoot dead a suspect who is in the process of taking their hand out of their pocket?

[Psychic Missile]

Only if the harm is proportional to the rights violation. (If someone tries to steal a pack of gum from you, it's probably not morally justified to shoot them in the head, even if that were the only way to stop the theft.)

Of course.

And it's ridiculous to say that the baby is violating the mother's rights. Especially if the pregnancy is the result of consensual acts. Even in the case of rape, the only rights-violator is the rapist.

Can you expand upon this? I don't feel I fully understand your reasoning.

[Teallaura]

Translation: Okay, so it should be illegal but I don't want to admit it so I will pretend that it doesn't matter even though it obviously does.

[Jesse]

Would someone like to explain to me when the natural occurrence of pregnancy became a harmful violation? When did crazy people start taking up this particular talking point?

[Teallaura]

Beats me. I was just thinking I am glad the new generation of proaborts is so totally clueless.

[Psychic Missile]

You've got to be joking.

You offend every human mother on the planet who has given birth. Are you married? Do you have children? Does your wife and mother agree with your sentiments?

I would love to ask your mother how she felt when she was pregnant with you.

You've never heard of morning sickness? Stretch marks? Pregnancy brain? Post-partum depression? Post-partum bleeding? Maternal mortality? Are you aware that in most of Africa, women have, at best, a 1 in 33 chance of dying due to pregnancy and birth?

[Teallaura]

You've never heard of morning sickness? Stretch marks? Pregnancy brain? Post-partum depression? Post-partum bleeding? Maternal mortality? Are you aware that in most of Africa, women have, at best, a 1 in 33 chance of dying due to pregnancy and birth?

So we should outlaw all drugs and alcohol as well as Micky D's since they have the same side effects you just described.


Hey, there's a solvent called dihydrogen monoxide that kills hundreds if not thousands each year. We should outlaw it. too, right?

[mossrose]

You've never heard of morning sickness? Stretch marks? Pregnancy brain? Post-partum depression? Post-partum bleeding? Maternal mortality? Are you aware that in most of Africa, women have, at best, a 1 in 33 chance of dying due to pregnancy and birth?

I gave birth to 2 children. You are an idiot.

[Jesse]

You know what else is a natural occurrence and is extremely dangerous? Sitting down. You have to really stretch reality on some things in order to give excuses. A handful of dangers from pregnancy (some of these are not even dangers, like stretch marks) does not equal the right to kill a child. But I am sure you already knew that.

[Teallaura]

Not that reality matters but you can't die from pregnancy. Death can result from some complications of pregnancy, but not pregnancy itself.

[Jesse]

Not that reality matters but you can't die from pregnancy. Death can result from some complications of pregnancy, but not pregnancy itself.

I am wondering if pregnancy is really Psychic Missle's main problem. He seems to give of a whiff of Neo-Malthusianism by the way he is speaking.