Pro-life and Democrat

[quip]

#1










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?

I'm not denying anyone anything...that's YOUR imperative.

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

Nope. Strike 2, Try again...you have one left.

 

[ok doser]

#4 got a little scattered, let’s reel it in:

…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) - - - Bringing unwanted life into a possible world of irresponsible abuse, neglect, violence and poverty

.
.
.
.

…you're special pleading on the behalf of the embryo at the cost of the newborn?

Nope


So to keep #4 on track, let’s go back to where you started to deflect:

...can you explain why these considerations (Bringing unwanted life into a possible world of irresponsible abuse, neglect, violence and poverty) would be of importance before birth but not after birth?

and this one, which I'm sure you'll ignore for the 6th 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?

I'm not denying anyone anything...

You’re either allowing her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance or you’re denying her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance
Which is it?

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?

Nope.

Are you saying that the mother of the newborn does have the moral responsibility to care for the infant?

 

[quip]

#1
You’re either allowing her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance or you’re denying her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance
Which is it?

The state via its laws says she has no right to harm her newborn.
Personally, I'm not "allowing/disallowing" anything. She chooses and deals with her own course of action.

If you're asking whether I agree with the legal standard..the answer is yes.

Where are you having difficulties?

Are you saying that the mother of the newborn does have the moral responsibility to care for the infant?

Moral and legal..yes. Why wouldn't I?

 

[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?

I'm not denying anyone anything...

You’re either allowing her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance or you’re denying her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance
Which is it?

The state via its laws…

Not interested in the state or its laws quip – as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, my sole interest is in examining your reasoning
Unless you can explain that, we’re done with this one too

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?

Nope.

Are you saying that the mother of the newborn does have the moral responsibility to care for the infant?

yes

Ok, good
So it appears that your position is that upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” to choose to be free of her unwanted child are transformed into a moral responsibility to care for her child

 

[quip]

#1














Not interested in the state or its laws quip – as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, my sole interest is in examining your reasoning
Unless you can explain that, we’re done with this one too















Ok, good
So it appears that your position is that upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” to choose to be free of her unwanted child are transformed into a moral responsibility to care for her child

Yes. The abortion circumstances pursuant to giving birth are now notwithstanding thus, "transforming" (odd word choice) her former liberties concerning bodily autonomy...etc. into moot points.

Was THAT your end-game? :idunno:

 

[SabathMoon]

A miscarriage doesn't kill fetal life. I merely kills a defective shell without allowing it to breath. Abortion allows the breath to happen and thus murder.

 

[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?

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

Ok, took a look – it’s all over the place.
Looks like my last point was this (paraphrased):

The new mother’s autonomy is more severely impacted by your insistence that she care for the newborn than it is by her preborn child

Therefore, “bodily autonomy” is not a valid rationale for allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born and denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

 

[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?

I'm not denying anyone anything...

You’re either allowing her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance or you’re denying her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance
Which is it?

The state via its laws…

Not interested in the state or its laws quip – as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, my sole interest is in examining your reasoning
Unless you can explain that, we’re done with this one too

.........................

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?

Nope.

Are you saying that the mother of the newborn does have the moral responsibility to care for the infant?

yes

Ok, good
So it appears that your position is that upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” to choose to be free of her unwanted child are transformed into a moral responsibility to care for her child

Yes

Ok, good

Let’s circle back to your original claim:

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

As you’ve learned, the newborn infant is as dependent on its mother for life as the preborn, and the burden to the mother caring for the newborn is greater than that experienced during pregnancy. You have yet to give a compelling explanation for the decision to allow “her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body” pre-birth and to deny “her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body” after delivery

 

[quip]

The new mother’s autonomy is more severely impacted by your insistence that she care for the newborn than it is by her preborn child

Well, no. No more "severely impacted" than yours or mine. Rather the pertinent situation (pregnancy) has now changed ergo her rights, pursuant to said change, have likewise changed accordingly.

Let’s circle back to your original claim:
As you’ve learned, the newborn infant is as dependent on its mother for life as the preborn, and the burden to the mother caring for the newborn is greater than that experienced during pregnancy. You have yet to give a compelling explanation for the decision to allow “her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body” pre-birth and to deny “her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body” after delivery

What seems to continuously elude you is not that the infant nor embryo is dependent per se (Hell, we're ALL dependent upon others to varying degrees) but rather those particular, dependent physiological factors unique to gestation...as opposed to those of general dependency.

Arguing with you is like watching a bad movie, ever with the hope that it's gonna get better...but to no avail.

 

[zigzangle]

Women should have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, before the foetus is viable.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Women should have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, before the foetus is viable.

Why?

 

[lifeisgood]

So, the emotive tactic today is that mommy is a selfless saint who - by such high virtue - has chosen to give of herself by giving birth to life?

When in the world did I say that your mom is a selfless saint?

 

[lifeisgood]

That's some comfy, warm 'n fuzzy rebuttal....except in those instances when she's not!

Spoken just like a "perfect" person.

Just a touch too naive and personally idyllic for any objective, practicle use.

So, you are saying that your mother having you instead of murdering you is too naive and personally idyllic for any objective, practicle use? (Notice it is a question, albeit a rhetoric one.)

Just my perception that maybe you have issues with your mom, for she is not perfect, and you would have preferred she had murdered you instead of having you and being such an imperfect mom. Just my perception though.

BTW: We ALL have some issues with our parents, they have with theirs, and theirs with theirs, etc., all the way back to the first one in the family lineage line.

 

[Stripe]

Women should have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, before the foetus is viable.

No wonder you were fearful of getting banned.

:banned:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Spoken just like a "perfect" person.



So, you are saying that your mother having you instead of murdering you is too naive and personally idyllic for any objective, practicle use? (Notice it is a question, albeit a rhetoric one.)

Just my perception that maybe you have issues with your mom, for she is not perfect, and you would have preferred she had murdered you instead of having you and being such an imperfect mom. Just my perception though.

BTW: We ALL have some issues with our parents, they have with theirs, and theirs with theirs, etc., all the way back to the first one in the family lineage line.

I'm wondering if quip or someone he/she knows who is close to him/her has had an abortion, and he/she is trying to defend that choice.

 

[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?

I'm not denying anyone anything...

You’re either allowing her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance or you’re denying her the “liberty and moral right” to choose to be free from this encumbrance
Which is it?

The state via its laws…

Not interested in the state or its laws quip – as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, my sole interest is in examining your reasoning
Unless you can explain that, we’re done with this one too

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?

Nope.

Are you saying that the mother of the newborn does have the moral responsibility to care for the infant?

yes

Ok, good
So it appears that your position is that upon delivery, the mother’s “liberties” are curtailed and her “moral right” to choose to be free of her unwanted child are transformed into a moral responsibility to care for her child

Yes

Ok, good

Let’s circle back to your original claim:

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

As you’ve learned, the newborn infant is as dependent on its mother for life as the preborn, and the burden to the mother caring for the newborn is greater than that experienced during pregnancy. You have yet to give a compelling explanation for the decision to allow “her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body” pre-birth and to deny “her liberties and moral right in removing said life from her body” after delivery

(my argument) is not that the infant nor embryo is dependent per se (Hell, we're ALL dependent upon others to varying degrees) but rather those particular, dependent physiological factors unique to gestation...as opposed to those of general dependency.

Ok, that (dependency) was argument #3, which you’ve already conceded

Now you’re referring (again) to those unspecified “particular, dependent physiological factors unique to gestation” as a reason to grant her “liberties and rights” that you will deny her after birth, despite the fact that her freedom of action after delivery will be more curtailed than before

 

[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?

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

Ok, took a look – it’s all over the place.
Looks like my last point was this (paraphrased):
The new mother’s autonomy is more severely impacted by your insistence that she care for the newborn than it is by her preborn child

Therefore, “bodily autonomy” is not a valid rationale for allowing a woman the choice to kill her child before he is born and denying a woman the choice to kill her child after he is born

Well, no. No more "severely impacted" than yours or mine.

You’re not insisting that you or I care for her newborn child. You are insisting that the mother care for the newborn child, instead of allowing her the choice that you had granted her moments before

 

[ok doser]

Quip - are you conceding #4? http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...and-Democrat&p=5284202&viewfull=1#post5284202

 

[quip]

You’re not insisting that you or I care for her newborn child. You are insisting that the mother care for the newborn child, instead of allowing her the choice that you had granted her moments before

More/less.
I can't insist she cares anymore than I can insist you do. Though it's the law and my opinion that she has a moral duty to the child... even if that requires a new caregiver/environment.