Abortion Double Standard

ok, so your entire contention is with the word "decide" ?

Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 

this appears to be the core contention

this is a purely voluntary interaction

clearly we disagree about the key points of this conversation

part of the function of a conversation

is to negotiate (instead of simply declaring) the key points

If one has a social contract with the state

then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially?

Considering the fact bodily autonomy is to do with your body what you wish. If you're not independently viable you physically cant do with your body what you wish (from another's own bodily autonomy). Your body cannot be said to be yours alone if it is not self sustaining without the leverage/aid of another's bodily autonomy. Your bodily autonomy becomes theirs if you don't have independent viability. This then means (most) foetus's don't have a right to bodily autonomy, therefore they don't necessarily have a human right to life either. What do you think of that, Mr bone

And once more, there's other facts of the matter which make them unsymmetrical unless we simply reduce it down to ownership of a "resource".

How would you argue against this?

Rights are conceived, acknowledged, and maintained by moral agents. Any right you claim that the zygote/embryo/fetus, or even infant, has would be an extension of someone else's prerogative.

By all means, in my previous long post - I have explained my primary argument - by all means - argue with it.

apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it

which i'm going to compare to the following,

apparently, at least in america, a person can purchase a weapon any time they wish

This is a terrible analogy;

it omits anthe key error in your argument. The two key errors as I keep pointing out, is one of classification: that all purchases are A,

whereas some are actually B;

and that you are using the results of one category of crime as a basis to assume that another category of crime would be treated similarly.

Fixing your analogy:

“Anyone can decide to buy a nuclear weapon  - because the punishment for illegally purchasing a fire arm is normally less than a year.”

Or let’s try another:

“Any wife can decide to murder their husband - because the punishment for battered wive defences is normally less than a year in prison.”

That’s the issue with your argument:

The issue I keep pointing out, and you keep purposefully stripping out of your responses and ignoring is:

• Buying a nuclear weapon would not be categorized as illegally purchasing a firearm.
  

• Murdering your husband for arbitrary reasons would not be categorized as a battered wife  defences.
  

• Deciding to kill your baby - would not be categorized as infanticide.
  

And:

• The penalty for illegally purchasing a weapon being is less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical or different offences are also treated leniently
  

• The penalty for a battered wife being less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently
  

• The penalty for infanticide being less than a year doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently.
  

Your responses are akin to:

• But nuclear weapons are technically fire arms, as they are weapons, that law would apply. 
  

• A wife would never kill their husband unless she could argue he was harmful to her in some way.
  

• But I didn’t say it was ALWAYS less than a year! You’re making stuff up, I never said that!!!
  

You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.

YOU CLARIFIED YOUR STATEMENT BASED ON MY OBJECTIONS THEREFORE YOU ARE A LIAR

By all means cite the post where I called you a liar. You can add it to the citation of where you feel I am selectively quoting you, or where I have failed to respond to one of your key arguments… I’m still waiting on those:

and sure, SOME women may be convicted of murder instead of infanticide for killing their own children within the first 12 months

Bingo. Nailed it. Let’s try and get you over the edge. Pay attention. Let me walk you through the issue and problem in your argument, yet again. Hopefully, you will not strip out and ignore this critical point this time - as you have continued to do throughout. Here we go:

There are very rare, heartbreaking instances of women after childbirth, not thinking straight for a variety of reasons - through forms of inaction or momentary breaks - kill their children (Crime A).

The law recognizes that this type of scenario is not the same as cold blooded killing of a stranger,

so has a special law to cover it (Law A) - when Law A is applied to crime A, typically the courts are lenient and aware limited jail time (Punishment A)- if any; and that’s not unreasonable. A day old baby screaming for a entire days on end, a mother in pain at her wits end, snaps for just a split second and shakes her baby - that’s not cold blooded murder and shouldn’t be treated that way.

There are also - even rarer - pretty horrifying murders of children, callous abuse, or bordering on psychopathic decisions where a mother kills a child.

(Crime B). The law recognizes this scenario is as murder, and typically ends up with the mother charged for Murder (Law B); being convicted and going to prison for multiple years (punishment B). There is perhaps one or or two case where the woman commits such a murder and is charged with infanticide, and faces larger jail time than in Punishment A (Punishment B) - perhaps there is some mitigation, but is generally punished by Murder with lots of jail time. Perhaps not all, not all cold blooded murders yield the same result after all  - but generally so.

Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)

Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 

No. That’s stupid. As I have been saying throughout.

What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.

How? Why? Because you say so?

I explained why this argument was semantic - in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored

in most cases it's actually true.

Not at all; and I described exactly why in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored

Punishment for Crime A is meaningless as an indicator of the punishment for Crime B

contradicting is not the same as "refuting"

But in your case - you explicitly state that killing your child is not murder - that Crime B is treated as Crime A. Showing that people committing Crime B are charged with Crime B, not Crime A both contradicts- and refutes the claim. This was covered in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored.

And this is really your issue: rather than explain why what I said didn’t refute your claim; you’re just objecting to my characterization of what some data does, on a technicality.

to be perfectly clear, there is an extremely significant difference between ALWAYS and MOSTLY

And if I was basing any of my argument on this difference, your complaint would be relevant - but it’s not.

but seriously, just make "your point" clearly … what the hell is your "central point" anyway ?

This is getting to the point you’re being purposefully dishonest.

Literally the 5 paragraphs above the portion you quoted spell out the details of what my objection is. Why are you chopping out all the paragraphs where I clearly spell out my point - and then demand I clearly spell out my point. 

This is ridiculous.

This post was a reiteration of post 131: where I detail what you’ve said, what my objection to it is, and why: you completely ignored the detail of that entire post too - fixating on a minor semantic issue - childish parroting, and assertion:

This post was a summary of post 81 - which you almost entirely ignored, and also post 90 - when I specifically repeated this same argument - and upon which you largely ignored in order to focus on simply reiterating the claims being contested that a.) “But a nuclear weapon is a type of firearm”, b.) “Firearms offences normally carry a lower sentence”, and c.) nuh-uh.

At this stage you seen comprehensively unwilling to even acknowledge - leave alone respond to what I’m actually saying.

That was a non argument. Nothing you said actually debunked anything i said. 

Are you under the impression that I believe a person has a obligation in financing the welfare of other people's kids?

ok, well within the current framework of how modern western society works. My position wins, unless you argue to completely roll back of human rights, my position will remain more consistent as long as property laws exist. You have to go ultimate skeptic (destroying all presumed axioms) to have a "critique" against me. I could say the exact same thing about anything, from rape to murder. Its a none argument.

Our social contract with society and the state and other peoples in our society says (dictated through democracy) that we ought to have rights to privacy and property. If someone doesn't  like that, they should either move to a country without human rights or advocate for the abolishment of them.

ok, well within the current framework of how modern western society works.

My position wins, unless you argue to completely roll back of human rights,

my position will remain more consistent as long as property laws exist.

You have to go ultimate skeptic (destroying all presumed axioms) to have a "critique" against me.

I could say the exact same thing about anything, from rape to murder.

but i've never seen this "social contract" you seem to be talking about

Have you even read the Griswold case, 3RU7AL? it literally agrees with me and says married couples has a right to use contraceptives in a married relationship....and as I've previously said, constitutional rights are always accidently not followed (these end up getting solved in the future) as is the case with contraceptives (as they were new at the time).

I just completed a search of this entire thread, starting on page one and ending on page seven

specifically for the quote "killing a child is not murder"

i said that if the mother of a child kills her own child

within the first 12 month of it being born

is NOT murder

and furthermore, they rarely get any serious jail time (at least in canada)

Me: Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)

You: this statement is demonstrably false, based specifically on the legal definition of infanticide which includes "intentional killing"

Me: Sometimes it’s murder - sometimes it’s infanticide.

You: “In Canada, a mother can kill her baby with the mens rea (a legal term for guilty mind) required for murder and escape conviction for murder….

and look,

i'm just as shocked and outraged as you (apparently) are about this

that killing a child is not murder

as is the case with contraceptives (as they were new at the time).

Abortion double standards

If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?