Video stirs up anti abortion hornets

[screwtape]

If someone trapped in your house (I don't know because a floor collapsed as they were visiting) you have decided you want them to leave but they can't can you kill them?

What?  I do not understand your sentence. Please clarify.  Or don't, because it sounds like it is going to be a horrible analogy.  Like, the house is a uterus and your adult guests who would be happy to leave just cannot are a fetus.  Try a different one, because I cannot fart loud enough to describe what I think of this one.

Once you have allowed this fetus to become viable, you can not simply kill it IMO.

You are confusing "can" with "ought". 

Essentially I define a human as a sentient being, if it has a brain capable of thought then I believe you have missed the abortion boat. 

Any sentient being?  Like, dogs?  Cats?  Whales & dolphins?  If sentience is where you draw the line, they you must be some kind of vegan, yes?  Because it is believed that animals also have varying degrees of sentience.  Or did you not mean sentience?  Did you mean something else? 

Also, how do you know when they become sentient (or whatever you mean)?  Just because the hardware is there does not mean it is being used.

What if they are not fully sentient until the "terrible twos"?  Would it be okay to kill them then?
 

Do you seriously believe that?  I most certainly do not.

Which?  That the brain is not fully developed until early 20s or that it should be open season on teens?

post vagina you are a fully vested human with all the rights IMO.

1. we've not defined what a "fully vested human" is, so I don't know what you mean.
2. rights are a leagal concept quite apart from fetal development.
3. I don't care about your opinion.  In fact, I'm sick of it.  I can find an unsupported opinion anywhere.  I don't even need to ask for them.  They are as common as air.  I care about positions that are supportable through facts and reason. Try doing that.  It would be novel.

 

I agree to a point but I do not think it is too much to ask for you to decide to kill it before it is a feeling, thinking being, within in a 6 month time frame.

It is debatable just how much thinking an infant does.  And it is not a binary option.  Different portions of the brain appear to develop at different times. So the question would be, how much or what kinds of brain activities constitutes a person?[1]

And dogs think.  So, what level of thinking is required to consider something a "person"?

I also would never demand she put her life in danger.

Sure you would.  By saying at some point a woman is obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, you are saying she must take a risk of dying in childbirth.[2]  It is a low risk, but it happens all the same.  The mortality rate for women having an abortion is much lower.

So, what about her health?  Would you demand she put her health at risk?  I'd guess yes, since you are willing they risk their lives...

A: 9 month-old fetuses have a ~100% survival rate

They don't.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110523/study-gives-new-view-of-full-term-pregnancy
http://www.marchofdimes.com/loss/neonatal-death.aspx

1.	http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ (not science, exactly, but still...) http://babyworld.co.uk/2011/10/how-your-babys-brain-develops/ "When a baby is born, its brain is about one quarter developed"
2.	http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/why-are-american-women-dying-childbirth-201438161633539780.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

[One Above All]

A: 9 month-old fetuses have a ~100% survival rate

They don't.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110523/study-gives-new-view-of-full-term-pregnancy
http://www.marchofdimes.com/loss/neonatal-death.aspx

3.9/1000=0.39%
100% - 0.39% = 99.61%
Given that I used a tilde to indicate "approximately", I think that was a fair approximation.
(I used the data from the first link)

[Jag]

Tilde marks can be misunderstood, depending on which "logic language" (unsure how to say that correctly) you follow. In the logic process I was taught, a tilde represents "not" or "it's not the case that...", but I know that's not the meaning intended or used in all methods. So I actually interpreted your post to say "it is not 100%", which isn't quite the same as "it is approximately 100%".

Not looking to argue over this, just making an observation.

[One Above All]

Tilde marks can be misunderstood, depending on which "logic language" (unsure how to say that correctly) you follow. In the logic process I was taught, a tilde represents "not" or "it's not the case that...", but I know that's not the meaning intended or used in all methods. So I actually interpreted your post to say "it is not 100%", which isn't quite the same as "it is approximately 100%".

Not looking to argue over this, just making an observation.

True. It is this way in MATLAB. I had forgotten about that. I'm just used to it meaning "approximately".

[magicmiles]

Especially when there are tons of kids who could be adopted but are not.

Could you provide links to establish that claim? I'm not challenging it necessarily, but it does run counter to what I have assumed to be the case.

I'd google it, but, you know, lazy Australian.

[screwtape]

prolly in here somewhere:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption.cfm

Ithaca College is a fairly respectable school, in the same town as Cornell University.
http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm
professor Duncan's credentials
http://faculty.ithaca.edu/cduncan/

[magicmiles]

The link for "Children in Public Foster Care Waiting to be adopted" is broken. Ah well. It's not topic I have a huge desire to discuss at the moment.

Edit to add: I did read Prof Duncan's piece. It was intelligent and well written. It does seem to point to the likelihood that if abortion was made illegal the supply of babies would out-strip demand. I will say, though, that having been at the birth of both my kids, I would be surprised if the number of mothers/parents deciding to keep their baby after all wasn't more like 50% rather than the 33% tentatively suggested. But that's just my guess.

[epidemic]

But after viability I think it is dang close to murder.  Little different than killing the guy in the floor collapse so we can move forward with the renovations.

There's no state in the US that permits abortion without exception (ie: rape, or life of the mother is at stake) past 24 weeks - which happens to coincide with a 50/50 chance at survival outside the womb.

I happen to agree with this policy.  Although the rape one I find a little unusual.  I see no problem demanding the rape victim make up their mind in the first 24 weeks.  Unless they were held captive and the choice was denied them.

[One Above All]

I happen to agree with this policy.  Although the rape one I find a little unusual.  I see no problem demanding the rape victim make up their mind in the first 24 weeks.  Unless they were held captive and the choice was denied them.

Or, maybe, you know... They were traumatized beyond rational thought for months? Ever heard of soldiers? PTSD? That shit doesn't go away easily. Doesn't go away at all, actually. Just decreases with time. Sometimes not even that.

[screwtape]

...if abortion was made illegal...

a small but important distinction - "if women did not have abortions and still had the same fertility rate". 

We know what would happen if abortion was made illegal.  Rich women would travel to places where abortion was legal to have them safely done.  Poor women would resort to desperate measures and subject themselves to great risk.  That's what it was like in the US before 1973.   Women died. 

And also remember, Miles, that many of the people who want to make abortion illegal are the same ones who want to keep comprehensive sex education out of schools and have no interest whatsoever in promoting good birth control, or women's and children's services.  Though they do not admit it, what they are doing is trying to enforce their version of karma.  That is, they want "promiscuous women" to get what they think they deserve.  It is all very punative.

Old post from a xian member (and a real piece of sht) who's not been around in a while:

Abortion is an excuse for women to not have to face the music of the mistake they made when they had unprotected sex.

Of course. And it's about your reckless and wanton lasciviousness and disregard for the consequences therein too, I suppose?  :

Of course it's about punishing someone for their mistakes. That's what justice is all about. You of all people should know the value of failure.

If sluts are "mentally" fit to make a decision regarding sexuality they are mentally fit to bare a child and should, by law, be forced to.
...
Adoption takes up little resources. It is perfectly viable. There's no reason an innocent life should suffer because the mother is a whore.

I can't make it simpler.

Check off which category I'm referring to in this thread:

A) Whores/sluts who have abortions because they can't keep their legs closed.

B) Regular women in general.

here he shows how much he respects women:

I mean, in Canada we have NO abortion laws. We have what's called "partial-birth" abortion, which basically means the stupid cunt can't make up her mind in time and is essentially "having" the baby when she decides to abort it half way through labor.

Kinda makes you want to go to canada and punch him in the face, no?

I would be surprised if the number of mothers/parents deciding to keep their baby after all wasn't more like 50% rather than the 33% tentatively suggested. But that's just my guess.

that's possible.  But is that what we want?  There is a saying which I did not understand until quite late in life - revenge is a dish best served cold.  I remember Khan saying it in Star Trek 2.  I did not get the point of the saying - that you should wait until you have cooled off to think about revenge because you will be thinking more rationally and will be less likely to do something stupid, like want revenge. 

This is true of all good decision making.  You do not want to do it (if you can avoid it) in the heat of the moment when emotionally or hormonally charged.  So if a woman has excellent reasons for not wanting a baby


edit: blah! I don't know what happened to the rest of my post.


... So if a woman has excellent reasons for not wanting a baby... then she has an excellent reason that probably ought not be usurped by emotions and hormones in the heat of the moment.  Those make a terrible basis for good decision making.

[Jag]

Let's follow the ideas that miles is putting forward.

How are we going to ensure that pregnant women (who would have a legal abortion if the option is on the table) are taking the proper care of themselves to have a healthy baby? Is she eating right? Getting enough sleep and exercise? Is she avoiding alcohol and cigarette smoke?  Is she doing all the little things that doctor's recommend for the best outcomes? Chain the knocked-up slut to the bed, duh, because if we care so much about the baby being born, we damn well better be doing whatever we can to ensure that it's healthy as well, right?

Or we can run with the idea that post-delivery, she might change her mind in the midst of the hormonal flood that accompanies childbirth and the weeks and months that follow. That's the basis of good decision making for the rest of your life, isn't it? By all means, in a state of heightened emotions with her brain chemistry all kinds of f'ed up, make the emotional decision to be a parent regardless of her previously recognized lack of capacity to do it well.

Great ideas, really. Keep 'em coming, simplistic, short-sighted "solutions" are the theist stock in trade.

[epidemic]

If someone trapped in your house (I don't know because a floor collapsed as they were visiting) you have decided you want them to leave but they can't can you kill them?

What?  I do not understand your sentence. Please clarify.  Or don't, because it sounds like it is going to be a horrible analogy.  Like, the house is a uterus and your adult guests who would be happy to leave just cannot are a fetus.  Try a different one, because I cannot fart loud enough to describe what I think of this one.

I think you are the example of the smartest guy in the room I think you are capable of working on it even as flawed as it is.  Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?

Once you have allowed this fetus to become viable, you can not simply kill it IMO.

You are confusing "can" with "ought".

You are right.  Can is not synonymous with ought.  I can do just about anything I want from mass murder to rape, however I ought not.   If you want to mince words.  90% of the use of the word can’t on this site should be immediately replaced with ought.  Again I think in all of your brilliance you can deal with the fact that people use cant in place of ought frequently.

Essentially I define a human as a sentient being, if it has a brain capable of thought then I believe you have missed the abortion boat. 

Any sentient being?  Like, dogs?  Cats?  Whales & dolphins?  If sentience is where you draw the line, they you must be some kind of vegan, yes?  Because it is believed that animals also have varying degrees of sentience.  Or did you not mean sentience?  Did you mean something else? 

Also, how do you know when they become sentient (or whatever you mean)?  Just because the hardware is there does not mean it is being used. What if they are not fully sentient until the "terrible twos"?  Would it be okay to kill them then?

I am sorry but I consider a human a human when brain is hooked to nervous system, when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival. 




 

Do you seriously believe that?  I most certainly do not.

Which?  That the brain is not fully developed until early 20s or that it should be open season on teens?

Are you really this dense.  You seem to have no moral boundaries.  Do you believe that an argument could be made to kill people post vagina to early 20’s?  If so can you please detail the argument?

post vagina you are a fully vested human with all the rights IMO.

1. we've not defined what a "fully vested human" is, so I don't know what you mean.
2. rights are a leagal concept quite apart from fetal development.
3. I don't care about your opinion.  In fact, I'm sick of it.  I can find an unsupported opinion anywhere.  I don't even need to ask for them.  They are as common as air.  I care about positions that are supportable through facts and reason. Try doing that.  It would be novel.

Ok we have established you don’t like my opinion and since we are being personal here.  I find you to be rude and belligerent. 



 

I agree to a point but I do not think it is too much to ask for you to decide to kill it before it is a feeling, thinking being, within in a 6 month time frame.

It is debatable just how much thinking an infant does.  And it is not a binary option.  Different portions of the brain appear to develop at different times. So the question would be, how much or what kinds of brain activities constitutes a person?[1]

And dogs think.  So, what level of thinking is required to consider something a "person"?

I also would never demand she put her life in danger.

I don’t know.  I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother??? 

BTW thankfully 50 of 50 states agree with me on the subject of third trimester abortion. If mom waits more than 26 weeks then her rights are restricted due to her unreasonable,  Life of the mother being the only reason for later term abortion.

I don’t believe the life of the mother should be unduly put at risk.  But if she waits 26 weeks then she probably is stuck with the results of her procrastination.

1.	http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ (not science, exactly, but still...) http://babyworld.co.uk/2011/10/how-your-babys-brain-develops/ "When a baby is born, its brain is about one quarter developed"

[screwtape]

Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?

It depends on the situation.  Me and a guy in a lifeboat are adrift in the ocean.  There is not a lot of water.  I beat him to death with an oar, eat the meaty parts, and feed the rest to the sharks.  Maybe make a parasol out of his skin to protect me from the sun.  Yes, I may do that and it is legally supported. 

Again I think in all of your brilliance you can deal with the fact that people use cant in place of ought frequently.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

I am sorry but I consider a human a human when brain is hooked to nervous system, when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival. 

So, now you are changing your criteria?  Revision is a fine and admirable in light of new, better data.  But I just want to be clear that is what you are doing.  Sentience is out and hardware is in?  Is that what you are saying?  And it does not matter how functional the brain or nervous system are?

What qualifies as a brain?   As I pointed out, at birth a baby's brain is only 1/4 developed.  So what qualifies as a brain?  10% of adult median?  5%?  Any ol' lump of neural cells?

Are you really this dense.

No, you were sufficiently vague in the phrasing of your question that I had no idea what you were asking. It was a genuine question.

You seem to have no moral boundaries. 

I have lots of moral boundaries.

Do you believe that an argument could be made to kill people post vagina to early 20’s?  If so can you please detail the argument?

Sure, I believe an argument can be made.  That does not me I find it to be a acceptable or persuasive argument.  I am not going to post it here because it would be off topic. 

You seem to be missing the points being brought up against your positions or, rather than address them, attempt to counter less important topics.

Ok we have established you don’t like my opinion and since we are being personal here.  I find you to be rude and belligerent. 

No, that's not it.  Not at all.  You've missed the point (again).  My point is not that your opinion is stupid.  My point is your opinion is all you have posted.  "I think blah blah blah" is boring, common and rather self centered.  Your posts end up looking like "I, I, I. Me, me, me".  On the other hand, "I think blah blah blah because of XYZ..." is what I am looking for.  It engages others.  It shows effort.  You've not done that and that was what I was pointing out.

I've put forth the effort.  And rather than thinking about what I've said, you've focused on emotions, your own and what you perceive mine to be.  So not only do I think you are being lazy with regards to your own posting, you are being lazy with regards to mine as well.  I do not think that is very respectful.

I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother??? 

1. I don't see how that addresses the whole stack of ideas I brought up above this quote.For example, you've not addressed whose uterus it is and this reply does not inform.
2. Could you please rephrase that, because I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate?   The same with the rest of the post

Look, I don't mind discussing this with you.  But you are going to have to put in more effort.  That includes spell check and proof reading along with better arguments.  I am not going to keep putting in the effort and getting just uninformed opinion in return.

[epidemic]

I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother??? 

1. I don't see how that addresses the whole stack of ideas I brought up above this quote.For example, you've not addressed whose uterus it is and this reply does not inform.
2. Could you please rephrase that, because I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate?   The same with the rest of the post

Look, I don't mind discussing this with you.  But you are going to have to put in more effort.  That includes spell check and proof reading along with better arguments.  I am not going to keep putting in the effort and getting just uninformed opinion in return.

I addressed the "who's uterus is it any way" argument.  You did not like my analogy.

As for (me, me, me, I, I, I) complaint, I choose to write from a belief perspective because this subject is not science but philosophy, morality and opinion.  Science does not say what is right or wrong.  The question is not one exclusively with a yes or no answer.  The question of whether something should be conferred rights is philosophical.  You choose to answer it with belief stated as fact.

As stated above, with the exception of life of the mother third trimester abortions are illegal.   This is a good thing and I support it.  You arbitrarily choose the vagina as the barrier for when rights are bestowed.  I arbitrarily choose viability. 

[epidemic]

Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?

It depends on the situation.  Me and a guy in a lifeboat are adrift in the ocean.  There is not a lot of water.  I beat him to death with an oar, eat the meaty parts, and feed the rest to the sharks.  Maybe make a parasol out of his skin to protect me from the sun.  Yes, I may do that and it is legally supported. 

Actually it really does not depend.  You seem to confuse inconvenience with life threatening.  With respect to inconvenience, your analogy would be more aptly stated thusly 

"It depends on the situation.  Me and a guy in a row boat with no oars (we threw them away) and we are adrift just off the coast (well within sight of land).  We have limited food and water.  I beat him to death with an oar, and eat the remaining subway sandwich, all while waiting for the visible local fishermen to approach."

Hey there is a remote chance you could have drifted to sea and a slight chance that no boats would have seen you.   So you must have been justified in killing him.  The fact that you would have in all reason have survived is irrelevant there was a chance of a problem.

[magicmiles]

just an FYI to Screwtape, you've attributed some quotes to yourself rather than epidemic in reply 41

[magicmiles]

Let's follow the ideas that miles is putting forward.

How are we going to ensure that pregnant women (who would have a legal abortion if the option is on the table) are taking the proper care of themselves to have a healthy baby? Is she eating right? Getting enough sleep and exercise? Is she avoiding alcohol and cigarette smoke?  Is she doing all the little things that doctor's recommend for the best outcomes?

Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

Chain the knocked-up slut to the bed, duh, because if we care so much about the baby being born, we damn well better be doing whatever we can to ensure that it's healthy as well, right?

Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

Or we can run with the idea that post-delivery, she might change her mind in the midst of the hormonal flood that accompanies childbirth and the weeks and months that follow. That's the basis of good decision making for the rest of your life, isn't it? By all means, in a state of heightened emotions with her brain chemistry all kinds of f'ed up, make the emotional decision to be a parent regardless of her previously recognized lack of capacity to do it well.

I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.


 

[One Above All]

Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

They could be unaware of the risks. My mom had a work colleague who smoked (heavily) during her pregnancy. She ended up having a spontaneous abortion.

Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

It's how you (forced birthers[1]) view women who want to have an abortion because they believe they're not ready for a child.

I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.

How long then? When is a while too long? One week? Two weeks? Maybe two and a half? 132 hours?

1.	Thanks screwtape for the term.

[Jag]

Let's follow the ideas that miles is putting forward.

How are we going to ensure that pregnant women (who would have a legal abortion if the option is on the table) are taking the proper care of themselves to have a healthy baby? Is she eating right? Getting enough sleep and exercise? Is she avoiding alcohol and cigarette smoke?  Is she doing all the little things that doctor's recommend for the best outcomes?

Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

The woman in question does not have a desire to bring ANY baby into the world. Is this really that hard to understand?

Chain the knocked-up slut to the bed, duh, because if we care so much about the baby being born, we damn well better be doing whatever we can to ensure that it's healthy as well, right?

Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

Compared to what?

Or we can run with the idea that post-delivery, she might change her mind in the midst of the hormonal flood that accompanies childbirth and the weeks and months that follow. That's the basis of good decision making for the rest of your life, isn't it? By all means, in a state of heightened emotions with her brain chemistry all kinds of f'ed up, make the emotional decision to be a parent regardless of her previously recognized lack of capacity to do it well.

I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.

So, in this reply you've established that you do not know how the adoption process works but are quite comfortable endorsing it anyway, and that you have clearly never taken a basic psychology course.

I think I'll just stick with my last line again as you quite nicely demonstrated my point yet again.

Great ideas, really. Keep 'em coming, simplistic, short-sighted "solutions" are the theist stock in trade.

edit: horrible formatting, still not right

[magicmiles]

Why wouldn't they? These women aren't monsters you know. I doubt they have any desire to bring a maimed baby into the world.

They could be unaware of the risks. My mom had a work colleague who smoked (heavily) during her pregnancy. She ended up having a spontaneous abortion.

I don't see why they would be any more unaware of the risks than anybody else.

Knocked up slut? What? That's a terrible thing to say.

It's how you (forced birthers[1]) view women who want to have an abortion because they believe they're not ready for a child.

1.	Thanks screwtape for the term.

I've never used the term or thought it. And lets not forget its sometimes a mater of simply not wanting a child rather than not being ready for it. Although I do recognise that wanting a child goes a long way to being ready for it.

I'm not suggesting the mother would make the decision in the first 24 hours you know.

How long then? When is a while too long? One week? Two weeks? Maybe two and a half? 132 hours?

I don't know.

[Chronos]

A young woman vids her abortion.  She's not conflicted, not emotionally wracked and not disturbed.  Just relieved.  Which royally pisses off the forced birthers.

May it happen every day.

[magicmiles]

So, in this reply you've established that you do not know how the adoption process works but are quite comfortable endorsing it anyway

I'm learning about the adoption process as the thread progresses. I never claimed it was the definitive alternative to abortion. I'm exploring it as an option.

[One Above All]

I don't see why they would be any more unaware of the risks than anybody else.

Because idiots want to keep every child in the dark about sex. No talk about sex, contraceptives, pregnancy, STD's, and so on. Nothing. They want everyone to politely wait until marriage to lose their virginity.

I've never used the term or thought it. And lets not forget its sometimes a mater of simply not wanting a child rather than not being ready for it. Although I do recognise that wanting a child goes a long way to being ready for it.

If you don't want a child, you're not ready for it. It's not "going a long way to". It's "if A, then B". If you don't want a child, but are forced to care for one anyway, you will mistreat it, even if unintentionally.

I don't know.

Give it some thought then.

[Jag]

I'm learning about the adoption process as the thread progresses.

NO miles, you're doing no such thing. You're reading tiny isolated snippets of ideas, opinions, and facts. You learn about something by putting forth a wee bit of effort and investigating for yourself.

At least now I understand the nature of our fundamental disconnect - we have very different opinions about what constitutes knowledge, regardless of the topic under discussion. Silly me, I thought it was limited to god beliefs. I'll take responsibility for that error in judgment, it was entirely my bad. I'll adjust my expectations accordingly.

[magicmiles]

It's just a discussion forum on the damn internet. A quick reading of linked articles is all that's really required. I don't actually intend to involve myself in trying to reform the USA's laws you realise.

[Jag]

Yes miles, I understand where you draw your lines now, and will make allowances for them. I had a few mistaken assumptions about you, and I recognize that I am the one in error here. You are welcome to live your life exactly as you see fit.

[screwtape]

I addressed the "who's uterus is it any way" argument.  You did not like my analogy.

It was an inapt analogy with little merit.  We are not talking about someone in my house.  We are talking about someone in my body.[1]  The people inside it were not invited and are not currently friends.  Sure, I left the front door open and had a party, but I did not ask anyone to stay.  I was not planning on having guests and they require more food and attention than I currently have resources to provide.  All I am doing is kicking them out.  If they cannot survive outside my house, well, tough.  I am under no obligation to support them.

So, have I sufficiently demonstrated how poor an analogy and argument that was?

I suggested you try another, but you did not take me up on it.  So, I'll throw out another lifeline.  Try this: don't use an analogy.  Give me a straight forward explanation as to why a another person[2] has more rights over your own body than you do.

As for (me, me, me, I, I, I) complaint, I choose to write from a belief perspective because this subject is not science but philosophy, morality and opinion.

Science is involved, and facts do matter.  So leaving those out of the discussion does you no favors.  It means your opinions are based on nothing but how you feel.  And philosophy is more than just tossing around opinions.  You may not know it, but philosophy is extremely rigorous.  A philosophy student does not get to just say "I feel that I am a brain in a jar".  No, no.  You get an "F" for turning in that paper. 

The question is not one exclusively with a yes or no answer. The question of whether something should be conferred rights is philosophical. 

I do not disagree with any of that.  Again you seem to have missed my point entirely.

Sorry ep, you apparently cannot give me what I am looking for.  You've made your opinion known, repeatedly, and I think that is the best we can expect.  So please pardon me, I am going to bow out from our discussion now.

1.	I'm a guy, but let's personalize this and say my body.
2.	we will suppose for argument's sake that a developing fetus is a person.  That is not a concession.

[screwtape]

just an FYI to Screwtape, you've attributed some quotes to yourself rather than epidemic in reply 41

thank you. 

[epidemic]

Science is involved, and facts do matter.  So leaving those out of the discussion does you no favors.  It means your opinions are based on nothing but how you feel.  And philosophy is more than just tossing around opinions.  You may not know it, but philosophy is extremely rigorous.  A philosophy student does not get to just say "I feel that I am a brain in a jar".  No, no.  You get an "F" for turning in that paper. 

This science you speak of?  Can you cite any of the work done that determinse personhood? Right and wrong?

Can you tell me where science has spoken authoritatively on the differences between a 9 month old fetus inside the womb, and the magical transformed Baby the instant it is removed? 
The Fetus 1 second prior has no rights and the baby 1/10th of a second later is a human with rights???




Oh yeah I just thought of it.  You have your party, you supply booze to your guests, one leaves your house and is killed due to your action of supplying them booze.  There is ample case law that indicates that you are responsible for your guests well being if you are responsible for their state of inebriation.  I also wager that you could be held liable for your guest's well being if you were to kick them out into sub freezing temperatures knowing that they could not survive.