Choice As Long As The Body Is Inhabited

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T20:47:12.980Z

And I stated that i did not mean to offend. You snipped that part out. I guess that wasn’t flawed.

From the perspective of retribution not from perspective of those who suffered the loss.

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T20:50:13.536Z

Ah ok so you do draw that distinction in order to argue against abortion? We are on the same page?

Yes society does too for retribution purposes. However, when it comes to rights we do not make that distinction. We balance equities just as the Supreme Court did. Again i am not 100 percent certain that it was the best choice but it is better than providing no choice at all

Guvnah · 2019-05-29T21:42:39.489Z

FreeAndClear:

And I stated that i did not mean to offend.

Nowhere did I say I was offended. So any part of any reply about not meaning to offend was irrelevant.

Guvnah · 2019-05-29T21:46:22.897Z

FreeAndClear:

Ah ok so you do draw that distinction in order to argue against abortion?

Where do you get that I draw (some) distinction “in order to argue against abortion”?

And you made that reply in response to snipping posts.

Retribution? Distinction? Snipping posts?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T21:53:42.215Z

Guvnah:

FreeAndClear:

Ah ok so you do draw that distinction in order to argue against abortion?

Where do you get that I draw (some) distinction “in order to argue against abortion”?

And you made that reply in response to snipping posts.

Retribution? Distinction? Snipping posts?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I apologize may be it’s confusing. The first premise of the following post. I will bold it for you reduce confusion:

That’s a distinction that you draw for yourself in order to argue against abortion. You are a religious individual and I respect that and I respect your faith in believing that life should not be snuffed out intentionally and that is reserved for God but at the same the taking of a life be it intentional, reckless, or indirect is still the loss of a life. Those who suffer from it - be it the aborting mother (who may indeed suffer the mental consequences of an abortion) or the family of a child killed by a drunk driver suffer equally.

Life is lost every day in the name of rights. It just is. Your faith tells you that it is wrong. Mine tells me that it is a cost.

In other posts in this thread you argue that you and society and general draws that distinction:

Our entire society holds that. Our laws hold that. YOU hold that.

Taking a life deliberately has always been more egregious than taking a life accidentally or even by carelessness (or even by recklessness).

My response is:

Yes society does too for retribution purposes. However, when it comes to rights we do not make that distinction. We balance equities just as the Supreme Court did. Again i am not 100 percent certain that it was the best choice but it is better than providing no choice at all

If you need help deciphering that i can expound further.

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T21:58:42.341Z

Guvnah:

FreeAndClear:

You are a religious individual …

I have used absolutely no religious argument against abortion – not in this thread, and not on this board.

Bringing religion into this discussion with me is a convenient boogeyman, but an invalid tactic.

Father suing abortion clinic for performing an legal abortion on his girlfriend

Our culture is so disordered that the concept of “wantedness” is a valid factor for whether a mother can kill her child.

In the Bible the most unlikely form of abandonment is that of a mother forsaking her child. It used to be that a mother would do anything for her child. Now we have enshrined in law that merely the decision not to want her child is sufficient to allow a mother to kill it. And 25% of children in the womb are so disposed every year.

Abandoning one’s child to an artificial womb just facilitates the propagation of that disregard for human life. No doubt it would still be better than killing it, but our social conscience is horribly warped.

A child shouldn’t exist because it is wanted. It should be wanted because it exists.

This is arguably a stretch but nevertheless

Guvnah · 2019-05-29T22:03:39.439Z

FreeAndClear:

This is arguably a stretch

Damned straight it is.

You had to scour this board to find that post to make a meaningless point. You’ve been wrong so many times that you are now desperate to prove me wrong on something. Anything.

And you know that even that post is not a religious argument. Yet you did that anyway.

It’s sad to watch, really.

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T22:07:25.503Z

I am not trying to prove you wrong. It is not my intention as I can no more “prove you wrong” than you can prove that a balancing of the equities is not part and parcel of the rights we enjoy. I am trying to explain to you my position. That’s all.

I am not sure how I can be “wrong so many times.” I have had a short interaction with you on the question of rights. Your hyperbole notwithstanding, i am having way too much fun for it to be sad

adroit · 2019-05-29T22:10:07.490Z

Guvnah:

I have been perfectly clear and consistent that self defense is a licit exception to any law about killing. Including abortion.

That doesn’t justify any other killing for any of the plethora of reasons people use to justify the killing of their own child.

You are using rare cases as human shields to justify abortion on demand. That’s simply sinister.

A 30% chance of being gutted is not a rare case.
If not gutted, a 95% chance of getting your genitals torn is not a rare case.
Being essentially tortured or drugged is not a rare case.
With maternal mortality rates higher than any other developed nation, a serious risk of death is not so rare a case.

Guvnah · 2019-05-29T22:13:54.672Z

FreeAndClear:

In other posts in this thread you argue that you and society and general draws that distinction:

Our entire society holds that. Our laws hold that. YOU hold that.

Taking a life deliberately has always been more egregious than taking a life accidentally or even by carelessness (or even by recklessness).

Oh, THAT’s the distinction you’re talking about. (You need to learn how to use the quoting feature better. You hooked that reply to the post-snipping smokescreen.)

FreeAndClear:

That’s a distinction that you draw for yourself in order to argue against abortion.

I don’t draw that distinction to argue against abortion. It’s a distinction that’s overarching any taking of a human life. I’ll repeat: “Taking a life deliberately has always been more egregious than taking a life accidentally or even by carelessness (or even by recklessness).”

Abortion just happens to be the taking of a human life under discussion here. The distinction applies to this issue no less than any other. A deliberate taking of a human life (other than self-defense – which is a totally licit and (practically) a universally acceptable reason) is a calculated and sinister act.

Pro-aborts don’t seem to care about that though. You guys keep pointing to miscarriages and unimplanted embryos as if it’s the same as a deliberate killing.

Guvnah · 2019-05-29T22:16:02.828Z

adroit:

…

I’ve been ignoring your interjections. It’s clear how you view a child, what you reduce its meaning to, and I find it sickening.

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T22:19:07.271Z

I have yet to point to a miscarriage or an unimplated embryo. If I wanted to discuss that I would.

As for the rest of your post do you understand what I mean when I say that it is for retribution purposes only. Do you understand what a balancing of the equities is?

Guvnah · 2019-05-29T22:31:55.987Z

FreeAndClear:

I have yet to point to a miscarriage or an unimplated embryo.

I didn’t mean you specifically. I referred to “you guys”. The whole pro-abort mob. I’m sure you’ve been reading along.

FreeAndClear:

do you understand what I mean when I say that it is for retribution purposes only.

I really don’t know what you’re getting at there.

Abortion isn’t retribution. In the vast majority of cases it’s one person’s decision to kill another because the baby poses a problem.

And there is no “balancing of equity” when the solution to the problem is simply to kill the baby.

Your line of argument is the sort of thing that pro-slavery advocates used. It’s disgusting.

adroit · 2019-05-29T22:32:06.502Z

Guvnah:

I’ve been ignoring your interjections. It’s clear how you view a child, what you reduce its meaning to, and I find it sickening.

I haven’t reduced anything. If I could wave a wand, I’d get rid of all abortions right now. It’s a tragedy. But life isn’t black and white. You’re trivializing what a woman is being forced against her will to do if these laws stand. They are SIGNIFICANT risks.

FreeAndClear · 2019-05-29T22:37:39.915Z

Guvnah:

FreeAndClear:

I have yet to point to a miscarriage or an unimplated embryo.

I didn’t mean you specifically. I referred to “you guys”. The whole pro-abort mob. I’m sure you’ve been reading along.

FreeAndClear:

do you understand what I mean when I say that it is for retribution purposes only.

I really don’t know what you’re getting at there.

Abortion isn’t retribution. In the vast majority of cases it’s one person’s decision to kill another because the baby poses a problem.

And there is no “balancing of equity” when the solution to the problem is simply to kill the baby.

Your line of argument is the sort of thing that pro-slavery advocates used. It’s disgusting.

(1) Alright cool so when I say retribution I am pointing out that we make the distinction in the type of killing (intentional or unintentional for example) when we choose to punish those who kill with intent. We punish them more severely. Those who suffer from the act indirectly draw no such distinction. I can again explain this further.

(2) Of course there is a balancing of the equities (it’s actually plural since there is more than one human’s rights in question). We balance the right to privacy. To be secure in ones body from government interference. We balance it with the right to life. Which right is more important? Whose right is more important? Why?

(3) Slavery is illegal rightfully so and without limitations on its illegality. Abortion is legal rightfully so and with limitations on its legality. We get things wrong sometimes and we get things right sometimes. As I said earlier in defending rights we often must hold what some will consider evil positions. It’s done all the time and not only in the name of abortion. Slavery is red herring though since it is now… illegal.

WuWei · 2019-05-30T01:21:59.919Z

JayJay:

It translates to “no thing”.

Mushin is a very important concept.

JayJay · 2019-05-30T01:26:55.318Z

Not sure what’s going on there…maybe it’s picked up a new meaning in Korean of which I’m not aware.

The concept of Mu being what you say when the question you are asked lacks the scope to be adequately answered comes from the famous Mu Koan which studies the question if a dog has a Buddha nature (although recent scholarship suggests this question is not so straightforward as originally believed).

So my answer to Sneaky’s question is Mu.

Guvnah · 2019-05-30T03:33:09.073Z

FreeAndClear:

when we choose to punish those who kill with intent. We punish them more severely.

Precisely. It’s more sinister. Because it’s a deliberate choice to kill.

And that’s what abortion is.

FreeAndClear:

Which right is more important?

The right to life MUST be paramount. You have no other rights if you are dead.

FreeAndClear:

Slavery is illegal rightfully so and without limitations on its illegality. Abortion is legal rightfully so and with limitations on its legality.

Taking a human life is the greatest violation of civil rights. You can proclaim privacy or other justifications to violate the most fundamental civil right, but it’s sinister reasoning. Pro-slavery advocates did the same thing, and thought they were perfectly right in their arguments and actions.

FreeAndClear:

Slavery is red herring though since it is now… illegal.

I truly hope that 100 years from now our progeny – even yours – will look back on this abortion-rights history of their nation with the same horror we now view our slavery history. And people will speak of pro-abortion rights advocates like you and I would now speak of our pro-slavery forefathers.

PurpnGold · 2019-05-30T03:42:20.661Z

Guvnah:

I truly hope that 100 years from now our progeny – even yours – will look back on this abortion-rights history of their nation with the same horror we now view our slavery history. And people will speak of pro-abortion rights advocates like you and I would now speak of our pro-slavery forefathers.

We won’t…

Slavery and abortion have very little in common.

Guvnah · 2019-05-30T03:45:01.016Z

PurpnGold:

Slavery and abortion have very little in common.

Both are egregious violations of basic human rights.

You vociferously defend one of them.