Political Crossfire Forums

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: -_-;; Reiterate your burden of proof argument.

I thought you were done?

[anselfir]

I have more patience.

Now I'll only do this once, but I'll babystep you through this one

[anselfir]

Reiterate it now.

[anselfir]

Eh?

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: I have more patience.

Now I'll only do this once, but I'll babystep you through this one

Well thanks great one. I'm humbled. :lol:

oneofthem wrote: Reiterate it now.

It is on the previous page.

In short, we can accept a women has a right to body autonomy. If we cannot accept this posit, this is akin to accepting slavery, and we have to go back further to find an axiom we can accept. My only claim is that this being a right, the right to autonomy, that we need justification for taking it away. It must be demonstrated that something exists with rights sovereign to the mothers rights which we have in our axiom, in order for them to be superceded.

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: Eh?

:lol: Easy there oneofthem...some of us have to actually type.

[anselfir]

The question here is not body autonomy, but interaction iwth another entity. That right is assumed, which is contingent on the idnetity of that entity. The bottom line is this question cannot be answered until both sides' rights are fully assessed, you seem oblivious to this most basic idea. OBLIVIOUS

Or esle you are assuming the second entity is a part of the woman, what be that? You cannot get away from that circle of yours.

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: The question here is not body autonomy, but interaction iwth another entity. That right is assumed, which is contingent on the idnetity of that entity. The bottom line is this question cannot be answered until both sides' rights are fully assessed, you seem oblivious to this most basic idea. OBLIVIOUS

Or esle you are assuming the second entity is a part of the woman, what be that? You cannot get away from that circle of yours.

Okay, I think we’re finally getting somewhere. But we still have two problems.

(1), I think that it is a matter of body autonomy, because the loss of body autonomy is universally understood to be undesirable and avoided. If a person cannot control what is in their body, they are being forced to use their body for a means against their will. We need a reason for this to be forced upon her.

(2)It appears it is not my argument that is circular. Remember when I said a circular argument is one where the arguer assumes as a posit, the very conclusion he is trying to prove. I’ll go ahead and assume when you say “An entity”, you mean “A life” You then say that the question is interaction with another entity. However this is assuming the very thing in question, namely that that which is inside to a point is in fact “A life.” There cannot be an issue of interaction with another entity, if it isn’t resolved there is an entity in question. You say both sides rights must be fully assessed. I say you haven’t shown me there is another side to have rights! You are trying to get me to agree to a premise that that which is inside is in fact “A life.” Without your demonstration that it is. I won’t oblige. I won’t argue your position for you.

[Sailor Moon]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Here we go again..


Well, I just want a justification to take things away, that’s all. Is that so unreasonable?

Isnt that what we all want? :lol: "I need a justification for you killing your fetus" "prove it" "prove what?" .......

Who said anything about killing fetuses? Abortion can remain legal to a point without fetuses being killed.

And in order for you to need justification for the pro-choicer to kill something that is "a life" it needs to be demonstrated that that thing, first off, is in fact a life.

[struggling with TGM1] If it can die, it is a life. [/struggling]

Well, cancer can die. So is it "a life?"

Absolutely! ... But cancer cannot EVER live on its own, and it almost always kills its host, therefore killing cancer is ethical, while killing fetuses is not. Killing fetuses is UNethical because it destroys a life that can, or has the potential to, live on its own, without posing any danger to anyone else, in 99.5% of cases.

Quote:
Sailor Moon wrote: Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: The question is not philosophical, its rhetorical.

Quote: And don't worry Sailor, I'm not gonna be around as much in the future, I'm thinking of retiring from abortion and spending more time on the Computer Graphics and other fun stuff. It's all the same here, and I'm bored.

What would make you say "Dont worry, Sailor..." ?

Because Sailor, whether you want to admit it or not, you enjoy my presence here. You grow stronger by fighting with me, and vice versa. Heat and friction keep the edge of a blade sharp, with without it, the blade will dull. My good Sailor, I am your friction, and so you too are mine. Despite our hatred for each other, which I daresay is deeper than just a simple internet forum, we have benefited from each other. I said don’t worry, because despite the fact you do not want to admit it, when I leave, a valuable opponent will be lost to you forever. I know you will say I am not valuable. You do not have to.

WOW you really are psychic!!!! Tell me.. What color will I paint my nails tonight? :lol: --Good riddance..

Well, if one of us is guilty of saying we know what the other is thinking, it is you. Did you try to argue with me for weeks that abstinence is better for me and my life, and all that jazz?

I ddnt lecture you. I educated you. I wouldnt proclaim to be psychic..

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Sorry, honey, but I believe that I have a much better poker face than you do.. I'll give you this- You certainly know when to fold em. :-D

Nah, it isn' giving up. It's I've won so many times I'm tired of the lack of challenge. I'm bored. Think about it. Who wants to argue on an abortion forum forever?

[struggling reconvenes] BUT YOU KEEP RESPONDING! [/reconvene]

:lol:

If you were really walking away undefeated, then why do you have this death grip on the forum still?

Lets see, my 537 abortion posts to your over 1600? Who is more addicted to the abortion forums? :lol:

At least when I walk away, it wont be because I cant hold my liquor...

[anselfir]

That would be fine if the entity you are manipulating is clearly defined as a part of your body, whcih pushes you toward the circle.
obviously you see the error of defining the situation as one of autonomy. It assumes the self as the only entity inovlved, among other stupid things, such as citing unilaterally defined discomfort as justification. no s**t if you have the authority you can do whatever you please. No s**t.

A circular argument is one in which assumptions are made that depend on the outcome of the argument itself. It assumes a priori the conclusions. Your definition is too narrow. I don't like assigning these names anways, a wrong argument s a wrong argument.

[Sailor Moon]

The problem we have, at this point, is the shift in "stance" he has taken. He has gone from saying "not alive" TO SAYING "autonomous", which, in its own right, assumes there is a life involved that can be taken..

Will the circles ever stop spiraling downward?

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: That would be fine if the entity you are manipulating is clearly defined as a part of your body, whcih pushes you toward the circle.
obviously you see the error of defining the situation as one of autonomy. It assumes the self as the only entity inovlved, among other stupid things, such as citing unilaterally defined discomfort as justification. no s**t if you have the authority you can do whatever you please. No s**t.

A circular argument is one in which assumptions are made that depend on the outcome of the argument itself. It assumes a priori the conclusions. Your definition is too narrow. I don't like assigning these names anways, a wrong argument s a wrong argument.

That’s exactly what I told you a circular argument was. An argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. Sounds and awful lot like “assumptions are made that depend on the outcome of the argument itself” I knew you wouldn’t pay up anyway.

And autonomy doesn’t necessitate that something be a part of her body. To be forced to work against their will was the loss of autonomy during slavery, because they were not allowed to do what they wanted to with their body precluding hurting others. Prisoners are denied personal autonomy as well. When one is forced by penalty of punishment via coercion or law, to use their body for a means against their will, this is the loss of body autonomy, whether you are forced to work, forced to be imprisoned…or forced to carry something inside you against your will. And I will assume the self as the only entity involved…until it is demonstrated undeniably that there is in fact. another entity involved.

[anselfir]

Liek zomg if i say you cannot kill me that's a loss of autonomy, no s**t. Now you realize that you still haven't ran away from that circular, as now you have defined autonomy as the nonexistnece of the second party, which is still yet unproven. LOLZORS

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: Liek zomg if i say you cannot kill me that's a loss of autonomy, no s**t. Now you realize that you still haven't ran away from that circular, as now you have defined autonomy as the nonexistnece of the second party, which is still yet unproven. LOLZORS

Indeed I have not. I thought we agreed a while back, at least tacitly by virtue of your not combating the point, that a person had a right to their own body? The beauty of it is, I don’t need to define autonomy as the nonexistence of the second party. But we can agree that it is lost if one is forced to use their body for something against their will, because by definition, autonomy means self governing, and it need mean nothing more to be violated by being forced to have something inside them against their will. So, once again, if this autonomy is to be compromised, I ask only that we have justification for doing so, and such justification must entail the rights of another, which must be demonstrated to exist.

What is it I am supposed to say......"LOLZORS" :lol:

[The Grandmaster]

Sailor Moon wrote: The problem we have, at this point, is the shift in "stance" he has taken. He has gone from saying "not alive" TO SAYING "autonomous", which, in its own right, assumes there is a life involved that can be taken..

Will the circles ever stop spiraling downward?

No circles here. Plenty of strawmen from you however.
I have never said that which is inside is not alive. I am only saying it hasn’t been proven to be “a life” which would be necessary to deny personal autonomy to someone else.

[anselfir]

No. Once the situation changes from one of autonomy to interaction between two beings, even if oen of these beings is inside the other, the autonomy does not apply. This be hte basics.

[The Grandmaster]

And you're not going to keep your promise about that ten bucks are you. I did tell you what a circular argument is. :x

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: No. Once the situation changes from one of autonomy to interaction between two beings, even if oen of these beings is inside the other, the autonomy does not apply. This be hte basics.

Okay. Demonstrate that that which is inside is "a life/a being" then.

And still, Even if it was, I dont' believe there is such a thing as "a right to live inside of another." :wink:

[anselfir]

That is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether I have the unilateral burden to assess the identity of the child. This cannot stand, as you must have a superior position, which you do not.

For your information, the concept of burden of proof is a legal one, and has no place in ethics. I find your crossing of completely unrelated arguments annoying, please stop.

[Sailor Moon]

BTW, if it can die, it is a life.

AGAIN! :lol:

Once she is pregnant, the woman has autonomy of her shell. That is NOT inclusive of the separate "thing that can die", e.g. life, inside.

......P
..S.......I
.............R
....O.........A
..N....W......L
..Y............A
......A...W