4 ms·

It was the mother's decision, and (cases of rape excepted) she made it when she chose to have sex. If, as a consequence of her free choice, another human being

It was the mother's decision, and (cases of rape excepted) she made it when she chose to have sex. If, as a consequence of her free choice, another human being comes to rely on her for survival, she must accept that consequence, not kill the helpless child.

nobody9999 3y ago
So you say. Reasonable people may disagree. Unfortunately, given your outrageous statement, I expect you're not a reasonable person. And more's the pity.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Which part(s) of my statement do you deem "outrageous"? Which of the below points of reasoning do you see as fallacious, and why? - Sex is (in most cases) a mother's free choice - A child's conception is the consequence of this choice - This consequence gives the mother a moral duty to care for her child
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    Do you have a functioning female reproductive system? If you do, your statements/beliefs may well apply to you. Beyond that, you have nothing useful or worthwhile to say to or about anyone else. I don't doubt that you believe the statements you made. As is appropriate. But that you think you (or anyone else, for that matter) have some sort of authority over the bodies of others (in that you can prescribe appropriate actions) is what's outrageous. Think terminating pregnancies is a bad thing? Then don't terminate your own pregnancies. Otherwise, mind your own business. And what goes on inside the bodies of others is most definitely not your business.
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      Authority over other people's bodies is the basis of all law. For example, if I use my body to shoot up a school, society has a right to stop me and hold me to account for the consequences of the actions I took with said body. More generally, my unlimited rights over my own body end when the actions I perform with that body affect other people. And an unborn child is "other people."
      - nobody9999 3y ago
        >an unborn child is "other people." That's a matter of significant debate in the medical community. And in religious[0] communities as well. You appear to be mistaking your trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature. I assure you, they are not the latter, only the former. As I mentioned, you do not appear to be a "reasonable" person with whom I can disagree. And so I'll say it one, last time: mind your own fucking business. [0] https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish...
        Georgelemental 3y ago
        > trained-in prejudices I was raised agnostic (and still am), and for most of my life I vaguely believed that abortion should be legal up to ~12-16 weeks—this was typical view in Europe, and I had never thought to question it. Until I came across the following (WARNING GRAPHIC): https://www.liveaction.org/news/infant-bodies-infanticide-attempted-abortions/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/infant-bodies-infanticide-at.... My "trained-in prejudices" were overcome in an instant, and I acquired my present view of the issue.

nobody9999 3y ago

So you say. Reasonable people may disagree. Unfortunately, given your outrageous statement, I expect you're not a reasonable person. And more's the pity.

Georgelemental 3y ago
Which part(s) of my statement do you deem "outrageous"? Which of the below points of reasoning do you see as fallacious, and why? - Sex is (in most cases) a mother's free choice - A child's conception is the consequence of this choice - This consequence gives the mother a moral duty to care for her child
- nobody9999 3y ago
  Do you have a functioning female reproductive system? If you do, your statements/beliefs may well apply to you. Beyond that, you have nothing useful or worthwhile to say to or about anyone else. I don't doubt that you believe the statements you made. As is appropriate. But that you think you (or anyone else, for that matter) have some sort of authority over the bodies of others (in that you can prescribe appropriate actions) is what's outrageous. Think terminating pregnancies is a bad thing? Then don't terminate your own pregnancies. Otherwise, mind your own business. And what goes on inside the bodies of others is most definitely not your business.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    Authority over other people's bodies is the basis of all law. For example, if I use my body to shoot up a school, society has a right to stop me and hold me to account for the consequences of the actions I took with said body. More generally, my unlimited rights over my own body end when the actions I perform with that body affect other people. And an unborn child is "other people."
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >an unborn child is "other people." That's a matter of significant debate in the medical community. And in religious[0] communities as well. You appear to be mistaking your trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature. I assure you, they are not the latter, only the former. As I mentioned, you do not appear to be a "reasonable" person with whom I can disagree. And so I'll say it one, last time: mind your own fucking business. [0] https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/ https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish...
      - Georgelemental 3y ago
        > trained-in prejudices I was raised agnostic (and still am), and for most of my life I vaguely believed that abortion should be legal up to ~12-16 weeks—this was typical view in Europe, and I had never thought to question it. Until I came across the following (WARNING GRAPHIC): https://www.liveaction.org/news/infant-bodies-infanticide-attempted-abortions/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/infant-bodies-infanticide-at.... My "trained-in prejudices" were overcome in an instant, and I acquired my present view of the issue.