No I asking no such thing, what I am suggesting is ethical is that a decision to abort be made early rather than late. I don't support your right to dither.podbaydoor wrote:
Edit: to clarify, I'm asking you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who, every time you're about to have sex, are apparently required to contemplate the risk of contracting a protracted illness, possibly life-threatening, which some people advocate you should not receive treatment for. And while you have this illness, you are likely to face a lot of shit from society because it is built to shame people who contract this illness. The "either abstinence, or babies" attitude reminds me of this. Please consider the "abstinence, or illness" scenario, since the first scenario is not applicable to people with no uteruses.
This thread has established nothing. You only believe it has. You can't possibly know anything about the inner motivations of someone other than what they've told you. Neither can I. The line is arbitrary. I suppose I should put these things in my sig so I don't have to repeat these things Ad nauseam. Everything is arbitrary. Nothing that you consider a right today has always existed as such, or is certain to exist in the future. From the Wikipedia. Please do not take the the phrase after birth to imply more than it does. This is effectively what this debate is about. Also note that some things that were relevant once are not relevant today.
A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. Various older privileges, such as the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, but be of little relevance today. Etymologically a privilege means a "private law", or rule relating to a specific individual.
I didn't miss anything. I used the closest analog available to illustrate my point. The theory would be the the wyci's rights as society has defined them are increasing with time and that with time will exceed the mothers.
Can you do anything other then spout truism's and generally add nothing to the discussion other than that you believe I'm a prick? I'll take you seriously when you return the favor otherwise...well I think you can figure it out.
Are you capable of using any tool other than sarcasm? I'm certain it makes you all warm and fuzzy. Over time I will become dead, and I'm quite sure that this would be defined as a worthy goal by some. However by making poor choices I can push the event much closer to now. Who would be responsible? You seem to want to deliberately confuse two different issues. I'll say this one more time and then I will assume the you are being intentionally obtuse and ignore you. Whatever the sex act may mean or be used for, whatever meaning it's practice may have between a man and a women, it's designed to produce offspring. I have it on good authority that it works. Seven billion humans and counting. As to the last I have given a theory to support my assertion. I clarified it earlier for Izawwlgood. I'll clarify it again in detail.
The theory combines two ideas. The argument is as thus. The first is that I can't know what you know or when you know it. Therefore I refuse to allow your assertion of ignorance of something you are capable of knowing and should know, to influence me. For the second I assert that the wyci will have rights and at some point that those rights will become superior to a woman's. I support that assertion by comparing two different wyci and asking the question, that given that each are of the same chronological age, and differ by nothing more than condition of existence, that is, that one is in utero and one is extant, then what property of the of the two wyci's makes them distinct from each other. I assert there is none. I end by asserting that at that point a mothers rights become inferior to the wyci. I support this by reductio ad absurdum. If killing the in utero wyci it is moral than killing the extant wyci should be moral as well.
I not going to respond to your assertions directly. What I will do is explain to you how the fucking system works. You assert rights. Society looks at your assertion and debates it. If you can't make a good enough case than society doesn't grant that right. There is no inherent right to anything. Were that the case than one of two things might happen to a mother when she gives birth. If she is morally correct than she would get a halo, else wise she would get horns. We, as a group decide it, we say that you either do or do not have the right. I recognized this when I became an atheist. There seems to exist a great deal of cognitive dissonance over sex. I'll be crude. Sperm don't care that you love your woman and eggs don't care if you love your man. They want to meet and get personal in the worst way. Neither has brains, sentience, sapience, wisdom or consciousness. Males produce a multitude of sperm and they are trying to wiggle their way to heaven. And if one makes it the egg will become fertilized. And so it begins. At no time in this process does the question of why they are doing this come up. I expect this reasoning from children who haven't matured intellectually yet, but I shudder to believe that adults don't seem to have a grasp of this. It makes me weep..... I'm not going to cite anything related to that point, as it is an assertion. I'll support it with an argument though. Sex makes babies. You know you have sex. You know that birth control is unreliable. Cheap effective pregnancy tests are available(twenty packs of test strips available on Amazon for 5 dollars). They can identify pregnancies quite early. I'm not sure what your trying to say in the second part of your post, but I'll try to answer. I translate most of it into why do you not agree with us. As to your charge of Sophism as defined by Wikipedia.
I'm not going to bother to deny it. I can see no reason to confirm to you that my beliefs are real. My arguments has been as consistent they can be when evolving and taking place ad hoc over a period of time. You should do whatever you believe that you should, but if you attack me then I will respond in kind. The thing I find saddest about this that the argument is over a period amounting to 14 weeks depending on how you define viability. I should be use to this nonsense though, since I have argued with Christians many times and they say the same things for exactly the opposite reason.A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual.