Pro-life and Democrat

[ok doser]

my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

(one reason) - Her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body.

can you explain why these don't apply equally after birth as before birth?

Because she's not pregnant anymore.

Do you believe that upon delivery of the child, the mother’s “liberties and moral right” to be free of her child end? That upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” transformed?

 

[quip]

if the result of birth is prolonged suffering, why wouldn't you be in favor of allowing the mother the choice to end it?

Does your moral imperative allow for suffering children? If not, why force the birth of an unwanted child into suffering?

 

[quip]

the suffering for the mother or the child?

sort this out and give your answer again clearly and fully

Does it matter to you? Are you arguing otherwise?

 

[quip]

Do you believe that upon delivery of the child, the mother’s “liberties and moral right” to be free of her child end?

Yes.

That upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” transformed?

"Transformed"? :doh:...:chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

(one reason) - - Bodily autonomy.

which logically, rationally and factually exists before and after delivery

Sure. Bodily autonomy exist for everyone. The specifics of pregnancy are germane to the issue of abortion.

In what way do “the specifics of pregnancy” influence bodily autonomy of the mother?
Do you allow the mother her bodily autonomy (which I understand to mean the right to do with her body as she wishes) after delivery or not?

 

[ok doser]

Does it matter to you? Are you arguing otherwise?

how can i argue otherwise when your intent is unclear?

 

[ok doser]

Does your moral imperative allow for suffering children?

of course

and so, again:

if the result of birth is prolonged suffering (of the child), why wouldn't you be in favor of allowing the mother the choice to end it (by killing the child)?

 

[quip]

In what way do “the specifics of pregnancy” influence bodily autonomy of the mother?
Do you allow the mother her bodily autonomy (which I understand to mean the right to do with her body as she wishes) after delivery or not?

You're going in circles...that's been answered.
Get some new material.

 

[quip]

of course

and so, again:

Ok. Then what's your objection to abortion?

 

[ok doser]

#1

… my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

(one reason) - Her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body.

can you explain why these don't apply equally after birth as before birth?

Because she's not pregnant anymore.

Do you believe that upon delivery of the child, the mother’s “liberties and moral right” to be free of her child end?

Yes.

Without referring to the law, can you explain how you can justify denying the new mother “liberties and moral right” that she had moments before?

That upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” transformed?

"Transformed"?

Yes, from a “moral right” to be free of her child to a “moral responsibility” to care for her child

 

[ok doser]

Ok. Then what's your objection to abortion?

i'm not objecting to abortion quip, as i've said repeatedly:

… my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

and so, again:

if the result of birth is prolonged suffering (of the child), why wouldn't you be in favor of allowing the mother the choice to end it (by killing the child)?

 

[ok doser]

#2

my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

(one reason) - - Bodily autonomy.

which logically, rationally and factually exists before and after delivery

Sure. Bodily autonomy exist for everyone. The specifics of pregnancy are germane to the issue of abortion.

In what way do “the specifics of pregnancy” influence bodily autonomy of the mother?
Do you allow the mother her bodily autonomy (which I understand to mean the right to do with her body as she wishes) after delivery or not?

You're going in circles...that's been answered.

Can you summarize or give a link?

 

[quip]

Without referring to the law, can you explain how you can justify denying the new mother “liberties and moral right” that she had moments before?

Yes. It's not subsisting within her body.

Yes, from a “moral right” to be free of her child to a “moral responsibility” to care for her child

Moral responsibility for the newborn is not a given.(i.e. it's potential suffering). Nothing has been "transformed".

 

[quip]

#2









Can you summarize or give a link?

Not doing your leg work for you sorry. Scroll, go back a few pages.

 

[quip]

how can i argue otherwise when your intent is unclear?

You stated earlier that your moral imperative allows for the suffering of the newborn...so I'll assume the same for the mother. Correct?

 

[ok doser]

#3

my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

(one reason) - - - Incipient life's reliance upon mom's body.

this is the argument about dependency, in which you claimed the newborn was independent and it was pointed out to you that that was untrue, that the newborn was as dependent upon the mother as it was before birth

if you believe the newborn is independent of the mother, then why deny her the right to abandon it if she wishes?

As well I pointed out that after birth the child is afforded full protection of the law.

So you’re abandoning the argument about dependency? Good. It was a non-starter

So that’s one down out of four

 

[ok doser]

#2

Not doing your leg work for you sorry. Scroll, go back a few pages.

and it looks like two down out of four

 

[ok doser]

You stated earlier that your moral imperative allows for the suffering of the newborn...so I'll assume the same for the mother. Correct?

my moral imperative allows for the suffering of all life, as an inevitable consequence of the world in which we live



and so, again, for the 5th time:

if the result of birth is prolonged suffering (of the child), why wouldn't you be in favor of allowing the mother the choice to end it (by killing the child)?

 

[ok doser]

#1

… my discussion with quip is an attempt to understand the reasoning behind

1. allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born
and
2. denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

(one reason) - Her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body.

can you explain why these don't apply equally after birth as before birth?

Because she's not pregnant anymore.

Do you believe that upon delivery of the child, the mother’s “liberties and moral right” to be free of her child end?

Yes.

Without referring to the law, can you explain how you can justify denying the new mother “liberties and moral right” that she had moments before?

Yes. It's not subsisting within her body.

And yet it is just as dependent upon her care for its life as it was moments before – indeed, more so
On what basis do you deny her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance?

That upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” transformed?

"Transformed"?

Yes, from a “moral right” to be free of her child to a “moral responsibility” to care for her child

Moral responsibility for the newborn is not a given.(i.e. it's potential suffering). Nothing has been "transformed".

The mother of the newborn does not have the moral responsibility to care for the infant? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[quip]

my moral imperative allows for the suffering of all life, as an inevitable consequence of the world in which we live

So, you're special pleading on the behalf of the embryo at the cost of the newborn? :idunno:

At least...you're inconsistent! lain:

Weird...as someone said prior.