Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Playing around with the bodily autonomy argument
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 6:56PM #21
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Feb 15, 2010 -- 6:28PM, Mmichael wrote:

My prediction was 100% on the money! And, I didn't even need a crystal ball!



It sure wasn't. Add to the fact that you blatantly fibbed when you said I'd never answer your question (The only question you asked I answered. Guess I do answer your questions. Go figure, huh?), when in fact you said I would never answer Newsjunkie's question but have somehow forgotten what you initially wrote out even though it's in writing and quoted, it sure as heck laughably wasn't.


For the SIXTH time, I (as in "I", hello?, "I") will ask my (as in "my", hello?, "my") question, "What actions do YOU believe constitute "intentionally harming a fetus". And, what punishments would YOU mete out to a woman who engages in these actions?" So far, newsjunkie has asked the question "once" and I (as in "I", hello?, "I") have asked the question SIX times. True, waaaaaay back in my FIRST post, I predicted that you would NEVER answer the question. And, guess what, I was correct! My--Next--Pre--Dic--Tion---Is------- You will STILL not answer the question and instead will say "You never asked me a question".


Here's an idea! Why don't you keep my prediction from coming true by ANSWERING my (as in "my", hello?, "my") question. I'll even start it off for you--------------


These are (a few/some/many) actions that I (Bei) believe constitute "intentionally harming a fetus" :


____________________, ____________________, ______________________, and ____________________.


And, these are the corresponding punishments that I (Bei) would mete out for women who engage in these actions :


____________________, ____________________, ________________________, and ____________________.


(Mmichael speaking again)-------I won't even bring up the fact that I was nice enough and honest enough to answer YOUR initial question in my FIRST post. I'll even answer it again in a more simple and concise way-------YES, a woman has a RIGHT to "intentionally harm her fetus". See, answering questions isn't so hard! You ought to try it some time. How about....................now!



I'm going to quote myself, just because I'm lazy:


1.) Generally, when one has a question posed to them, they answer it, then they ask their question of their own. They don't have a question posed to them, and ask a question in response without answering the question originally posed to them.


2.) You're just trying to pass of Newsjunkie's question as your own, which I already said will be responded to after Newsjunkie, the person who initially asked me the question, responded to the question posed to her (As one doesn't get to propose a question before answering the one posed to them).


Like I said, we can keep on doing this. Trying to pass of someone else's question as your own in order to not have them answer the question which was posed to them initially isn't going to work. Like I said, once NJ answers my question, I'll answer hers. You deciding to, for lack of a better word, hijack her question doesn't make it any less of her question.


And, just for the record, you've used the word "Nazi" twice today. (I noticed you used it in another thread earlier). You might want to be careful about that. "Big Brother", you know? The Government "watching", you know? "Keeping track", you know? Careful, careful.



Yup. I used it twice today. Once in response to that other person's thread when they mentioned the Nazi's and the Final Solution, and once in this thread to lol @ your nitpicking of my spelling.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 11:24PM #22
Mmichael
Posts: 157

Feb 15, 2010 -- 6:56PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Feb 15, 2010 -- 6:28PM, Mmichael wrote:

My prediction was 100% on the money! And, I didn't even need a crystal ball!



It sure wasn't. Add to the fact that you blatantly fibbed when you said I'd never answer your question (The only question you asked I answered. Guess I do answer your questions. Go figure, huh?), when in fact you said I would never answer Newsjunkie's question but have somehow forgotten what you initially wrote out even though it's in writing and quoted, it sure as heck laughably wasn't.


For the SIXTH time, I (as in "I", hello?, "I") will ask my (as in "my", hello?, "my") question, "What actions do YOU believe constitute "intentionally harming a fetus". And, what punishments would YOU mete out to a woman who engages in these actions?" So far, newsjunkie has asked the question "once" and I (as in "I", hello?, "I") have asked the question SIX times. True, waaaaaay back in my FIRST post, I predicted that you would NEVER answer the question. And, guess what, I was correct! My--Next--Pre--Dic--Tion---Is------- You will STILL not answer the question and instead will say "You never asked me a question".


Here's an idea! Why don't you keep my prediction from coming true by ANSWERING my (as in "my", hello?, "my") question. I'll even start it off for you--------------


These are (a few/some/many) actions that I (Bei) believe constitute "intentionally harming a fetus" :


____________________, ____________________, ______________________, and ____________________.


And, these are the corresponding punishments that I (Bei) would mete out for women who engage in these actions :


____________________, ____________________, ________________________, and ____________________.


(Mmichael speaking again)-------I won't even bring up the fact that I was nice enough and honest enough to answer YOUR initial question in my FIRST post. I'll even answer it again in a more simple and concise way-------YES, a woman has a RIGHT to "intentionally harm her fetus". See, answering questions isn't so hard! You ought to try it some time. How about....................now!



I'm going to quote myself, just because I'm lazy:


1.) Generally, when one has a question posed to them, they answer it, then they ask their question of their own. They don't have a question posed to them, and ask a question in response without answering the question originally posed to them.


2.) You're just trying to pass of Newsjunkie's question as your own, which I already said will be responded to after Newsjunkie, the person who initially asked me the question, responded to the question posed to her (As one doesn't get to propose a question before answering the one posed to them).


Like I said, we can keep on doing this. Trying to pass of someone else's question as your own in order to not have them answer the question which was posed to them initially isn't going to work. Like I said, once NJ answers my question, I'll answer hers. You deciding to, for lack of a better word, hijack her question doesn't make it any less of her question.


And, just for the record, you've used the word "Nazi" twice today. (I noticed you used it in another thread earlier). You might want to be careful about that. "Big Brother", you know? The Government "watching", you know? "Keeping track", you know? Careful, careful.



Yup. I used it twice today. Once in response to that other person's thread when they mentioned the Nazi's and the Final Solution, and once in this thread to lol @ your nitpicking of my spelling.





I should start my own "Psychic Hotline"!!!


Even when I give someone a HUGE opening to prove my "prediction" wrong, I'm still right!


Why don't we try something new! I'll pretend this is not my SEVENTH (S-E-V-E-N-T-H) time to ask this question. I'll pretend this is my FIRST time asking the question.


Hi there! I just read your question asking "Does a woman have the right to intentionally harm her fetus". My answer is "Yes, a woman has the right to intentionally harm her fetus."


I'm curious though. What actions do YOU believe constitute "intentionally harming a fetus"? And, what punishments would YOU mete out for a woman who engages in those actions? Your answers to those questions would help ME to better understand the point you're trying to make with your initial question. I look forward to reading your answers to my question. Thank you.


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 11:53PM #23
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Feb 15, 2010 -- 11:24PM, Mmichael wrote:

I should start my own "Psychic Hotline"!!!



Why would you want to end up in jail for fraud?


Even when I give someone a HUGE opening to prove my "prediction" wrong, I'm still right!



Of course you are.


*nods head in agreement*


Why don't we try something new! I'll pretend this is not my SEVENTH (S-E-V-E-N-T-H) time to ask this question. I'll pretend this is my FIRST time asking the question.


Hi there! I just read your question asking "Does a woman have the right to intentionally harm her fetus". My answer is "Yes, a woman has the right to intentionally harm her fetus."


I'm curious though. What actions do YOU believe constitute "intentionally harming a fetus"? And, what punishments would YOU mete out for a woman who engages in those actions? Your answers to those questions would help ME to better understand the point you're trying to make with your initial question. I look forward to reading your answers to my question. Thank you.



I was never really good at pretending. At any rate, I'll tell you right as soon as NJ answers the question posed to her.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 2:59PM #24
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

I see no need for laws prohibiting a woman from intending to harm her fetus. Most of us realize that women who want to be pregnant do their best to have a healthy baby, and those who don't want to be pregnant seek out early abortions. The suggestion that laws are needed to prevent women from intentionally harming their own fetus is simply an indication that the person making the suggestion has a very low opinion of pregnant women, and likely of women in general. Making abortion illegal, which PLers advocate, is what would drive women to intentionally harm her fetus. We already had the horror of coat-hanger days; we ought to learn from history. If you don't want women intentionally harming their fetus, keep abortion legal and accessible so that women who don't want to continue a pregnancy can end it early, before the embryo becomes a fetus.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 2:54AM #25
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Feb 17, 2010 -- 2:59PM, newsjunkie wrote:

I see no need for laws prohibiting a woman from intending to harm her fetus. Most of us realize that women who want to be pregnant do their best to have a healthy baby, and those who don't want to be pregnant seek out early abortions. The suggestion that laws are needed to prevent women from intentionally harming their own fetus is simply an indication that the person making the suggestion has a very low opinion of pregnant women, and likely of women in general.



Are you unaware of the fact that women do, indeed, try to harm their unborn child? 


Making abortion illegal, which PLers advocate, is what would drive women to intentionally harm her fetus.



Women already try to harm them. See the link in one of the posts directed to TS. 


We already had the horror of coat-hanger days; we ought to learn from history.



A lie repeated a million times doesn't make it a truth. Honestly. Since my posts on the subject get ignored, why don't you find something outlining the masses of women self-inducing abortions via coat hangers?


If you don't want women intentionally harming their fetus, keep abortion legal and accessible so that women who don't want to continue a pregnancy can end it early, before the embryo becomes a fetus.



The premise here is false, as women already try to harm their unborn children and abortion is legal. The conclusion here is also false for the same reason the premise is false.


...Anyway, you still didn't answer the question. I asked if a woman should be allowed to intentionally harm her unborn child, not whether or not we need laws protecting the unborn.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 10:31PM #26
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

A fetus is inside a woman. How do you prevent a woman from harming something inside her? Lock her up and keep her under 24/7 observation? This is such a ridiculous thread -- it has nothing to do with the abortion issue. What it tries to suggest is the repugnant notion that pregnant women need to be controlled so that they do not harm their fetuses What this thread reveals is the negative attitude toward women held by some PLers, who can't resist the temptation to paint women as untrustworthy, selfish, immature and in need of control, much like unruly children. I reject this. I value personal liberty and freedom, and yes -- bodily autonomy. I agree with TolerantSis and the ACLU -- being pregnant does not mean you should be subject to laws that the rest of the population isn't subject to. That's not the way we do things in this country -- thank God!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2010 - 12:52PM #27
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Feb 18, 2010 -- 10:31PM, newsjunkie wrote:

A fetus is inside a woman. How do you prevent a woman from harming something inside her? Lock her up and keep her under 24/7 observation? This is such a ridiculous thread -- it has nothing to do with the abortion issue. What it tries to suggest is the repugnant notion that pregnant women need to be controlled so that they do not harm their fetuses What this thread reveals is the negative attitude toward women held by some PLers, who can't resist the temptation to paint women as untrustworthy, selfish, immature and in need of control, much like unruly children. I reject this. I value personal liberty and freedom, and yes -- bodily autonomy.



Oh, surprise, surprise! I count three different logical fallacies above. It doesn't really surprise me, because I'm used to it by now. Instead of responding to the things I do type out, you go off on some tangent about how I hate women or are content to demonize them or whatever else you can think up. It's funny, yet sad at the same moment. But I 'spose when you can't actually bother to respond to the things I type out, that fallacies are the only thing you have to rely on. But I digress.


Why is this is a ridiculous thread? What this thread shows is that, to rationalize abortion, you have to go to some pretty extreme lengths which allows a woman to do to her unborn child as she pleases. It's actually further odd how you say it's okay for a woman to have an abortion until viability, not okay for a woman to have an abortion after viability, but perfectly acceptable for the woman to harm her unborn child throughout all of pregnancy. Those three statements are incongruent. Either:


1.) A woman should be able to have an abortion throughout all of pregnancy as she is able to harm her unborn child throughout all of pregnancy (A notion you reject).


2.) A woman woman should only be able to have an abortion up until viability, which also means that a woman would be responsible for bringing harm to her unborn child after viability (Another notion which you also reject).


3.) A woman would be unable to have an abortion or bring harm to her child throughout pregnancy unless there was cause to do so (Yet again, another notion you reject).


...Oh, and explain to me why, since we can't prevent a woman from harming something inside of her, abortion isn't legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy? She will, after all, just do it anyway if she wants. So why not make it legal?


I agree with TolerantSis and the ACLU -- being pregnant does not mean you should be subject to laws that the rest of the population isn't subject to. That's not the way we do things in this country -- thank God!



I'm convinced you really don't understand the things you type out. I'd just like to point out to you-- As I have on numerous occassions-- That if I, for example, were to intentionally try to harm a fetus, I'd go to jail in most every state. So the question is why shouldn't a pregnant woman be subjected to the same laws everyone else is if she tries to intentionally harm a fetus? The answer, as per your logic, is that she should be subjected to the same laws as everyone else, as no one group should be given any special treatment under the law.


...Oh, but seeing as how I just blew a big hole in your argument, you will now proceed to ignore it and go on about how I hate women or whatever.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2010 - 7:05PM #28
Halcyon-days
Posts: 290

Mar 1, 2010 -- 12:52PM, Bei1052 wrote:


I'm convinced you really don't understand the things you type out. I'd just like to point out to you-- As I have on numerous occassions-- That if I, for example, were to intentionally try to harm a fetus, I'd go to jail in most every state. So the question is why shouldn't a pregnant woman be subjected to the same laws everyone else is if she tries to intentionally harm a fetus? The answer, as per your logic, is that she should be subjected to the same laws as everyone else, as no one group should be given any special treatment under the law.


...Oh, but seeing as how I just blew a big hole in your argument, you will now proceed to ignore it and go on about how I hate women or whatever.




Women are subject to the same laws as everyone else.  The thing is, it's not illegal to hurt a fetus that's in your own body.  A woman would go to jail just as quick as you would if she were to go out and punch a pregnant woman in the stomach to make her miscarry because it's not within her rights to do anything to a fetus in someone else's body.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2010 - 9:11PM #29
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Mar 1, 2010 -- 7:05PM, Halcyon-days wrote:

Women are subject to the same laws as everyone else.  The thing is, it's not illegal to hurt a fetus that's in your own body.  A woman would go to jail just as quick as you would if she were to go out and punch a pregnant woman in the stomach to make her miscarry because it's not within her rights to do anything to a fetus in someone else's body.



Arguing what is instead of what should be is bad form, as what is is not necessarily what should be. I end up pointing this out far too often for my own good. Why? I dunno'. But, anyway, we all realize what a woman can do. That's not the question. The question is what she should be able to do. Arguing that a woman should be able to do to the unborn as she wants because it's in her body necessitates advocating for abortion-on-demand, as the unborn is always in the woman's body until it's born. And this is even without asking how one's basic protections can be rescinded based upon who's acting against them, which doesn't even make sense, and isn't the case anywhere outside of abortion.


...At any rate, the above is off-topic, but I'm bored (:


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2010 - 10:56PM #30
Halcyon-days
Posts: 290

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:11PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Mar 1, 2010 -- 7:05PM, Halcyon-days wrote:

Women are subject to the same laws as everyone else.  The thing is, it's not illegal to hurt a fetus that's in your own body.  A woman would go to jail just as quick as you would if she were to go out and punch a pregnant woman in the stomach to make her miscarry because it's not within her rights to do anything to a fetus in someone else's body.



Arguing what is instead of what should be is bad form, as what is is not necessarily what should be. I end up pointing this out far too often for my own good. Why? I dunno'. But, anyway, we all realize what a woman can do. That's not the question. The question is what she should be able to do. Arguing that a woman should be able to do to the unborn as she wants because it's in her body necessitates advocating for abortion-on-demand, as the unborn is always in the woman's body until it's born. And this is even without asking how one's basic protections can be rescinded based upon who's acting against them, which doesn't even make sense, and isn't the case anywhere outside of abortion.


...At any rate, the above is off-topic, but I'm bored (:


 


 




 


Okay then, I'll rephrase it.  A woman should be able to control what is and is not living inside her own body.  So if she wants an abortion, she should be able to have it without anyone questioning her decision or making her go through a bunch of legal hurdles.  That is what a woman should be able to do.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook