(Not to encourage this but) here's the abortion thread

[jough]

It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.

Well, this is where I (and U.S. law) differ from you, then.

I believe you also wrote that you did not think that people did not become sovereign entities with human rights until they reached emotional or mental adulthood, in which case I would say you should probably be careful about killing Adam Sandler because you'll probably see at least SOME jail time for his murder.

There's no sense in arguing with someone who doesn't believe that a seven year old girl should not be killed because she's not a person in your eyes (not being an adult yet).

You're hard-core, buddy.  Even Dick Cheney is going "Whoa, that's fuck*ng harsh!"

[arkabee]

It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.

Well, this is where I (and U.S. law) differ from you, then.

So, you do not believe and/or US law does not state that:
1) it is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child
2) it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of
?

Wow, that's pretty hard-core, man.  You must be a roll model for every teen mother who dumps her baby in an alley....

I believe you also wrote that you did not think that people did not become sovereign entities with human rights until they reached emotional or mental adulthood,

believe what you will.  the text of what i wrote is on your disk space, though:

that being said, i would state that a child becomes "a sovereign entity of its own" upon reaching "adulthood". and upon reaching that "stage", achieves both its RIGHTS and its RESPONSIBILITIES.

note: no use of the phrase "human rights" but usage of the word "rights".

theory: use of word "rights" to convey meaning different than "human rights".

support of theory: from 2 sections prior to quote:

and what rights _do_ a child have?

are we talking universal civil rights, or specific national rights?

asking for clarification of which rights children were in question of having.

in which case I would say you should probably be careful about killing Adam Sandler because you'll probably see at least SOME jail time for his murder.

please show me where you believe i said i was going to, or advocated, killing anyone.

There's no sense in arguing with someone who doesn't believe that a seven year old girl should not be killed because she's not a person in your eyes (not being an adult yet).

person!=adult

i was never arguing, i was attempting to discuss.  no sense in discussing with someone hell-bent  on arguing.

please show me where you believe i said i felt a seven year old girl should not be killed.
(edit= that _should_ say "should be killed". )

You're hard-core, buddy.  Even Dick Cheney is going "Whoa, that's fuck*ng harsh!"

indeed.

[arkabee]

from right before the thread was locked:
"

The line where you can dehumanise someone/thing is a fine one.  Why is it okay to kill a three month old fetus but not okay to kill a 34 year old woman?

i will not state that it is "okay to kill a three month old fetus", which is what you would have me do by phrasing your question the way that you have.

there are a number of reasons why it is not okay to kill an adult of any age or any gender, just as there are a number of reasons as to why it IS okay to kill such an adult.  however, just because there are reasons to do something does not make such a thing universally okay.  for instance, a reason to kill an adult would be as penalty for crime, a la "death penalty".  that would be a reason, and in some ways of thinking would make the killing "okay".

however, i take your question to mean the killing of "innocents", since you juxtapose a 34 year old woman against a baby, wherein a baby is a cultural pillar of presumed innocence.

to further pull at the thread, why is it ok to kill an animal and not a human?  why is it ok to kill some animals, but not others?  don't kill the fluffy bunny (which is a "useless" animal: no milk, no eggs, shits everywhere and is rather poor companionship, problems with population control, etc) but kill the moo cow and eat 'em or wear 'em (while alive they provide fertilizer and milk [and cheese, etc]).  [and yes, the rabbit produces "shit" and the cow produces "fertilizer".  such are my cultural worldviews].

if you want to make a declaration that it is not okay to kill a baby, then do so, by all means!  but a baby is _not_ a 34 year old woman, nor is it a rabbit nor a cow.

having said all that, do you really want the reasoning behind the not okay-ness of killing a 34 year old woman discussed, or do you want to go back to the discussion of when is it "killing babies"?
"

jough, i'm not arguing, i'm discussing.

if you don't feel like discussing, that's cool, just say you don't feel like discussing, just don't accuse me of trying to kill adam sandler.

jeeze, i thought little nicky was kind of funny.

[V-Adore]

Er, no disrespect meant to whoever unlocked this, but I'm going to have to ask that everyone respect wombat's choice to keep this locked, plz. At this point any outlying points can be taken to PM.

[jough]

I guess I will have the last word in this thread, then, since I can post even if the thread is locked.

I will restrain myself to only replying to comments given under direct testimony.

i can not concede that a baby has the right to choose its own destiny, because i do not believe that that is a universal right; for if i were to believe that, then surely i must fall upon the deepest depression since the world that i live in has surely stripped all babies of that "right", and a world where the universe itself can strip all of humanity of a universal right is surely not a world fit for humanity to live.

Well, the U.S. was founded under the belief (thanks to John Locke) that humans have the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."   Murder (I'll define murder in this context as "one sentient entity willfully ending the life of another sentient entity) would undoubtedly curtail those rights.  These rights are not issued to us by our government - they are inalienable HUMAN rights - they cannot be taken away - some would say that they cannot even be issued away (although wouldn't not having the right to give up your rights cut into your liberty?).

Human's rights can't be stripped - but of course they can be violated.  Wouldn't a sovereign entity's life being ended without its consent be a human rights violation? (this question is purely rhetorical due to the locked thread).

i feel that with rights come responsibilities

No, you can have rights without responsibilities.  You have no responsibility for staying alive even though you have a right to life.

i would state that a child becomes "a sovereign entity of its own" upon reaching "adulthood".

So wouldn't the inverse of your argument (and you are making an argument even if you do not think you are - I'm sure dictionary.com can help out with these terms if you want to bicker about basic english rather than the issues at hand) be that children are not "sovereign entities" and thus not subject to basic human rights?  Without that distinction, that a child/baby/toddler/etc. is a human with inalienable rights, then what stops you from killing one in a crowded theatre if it's noisy?  

I suppose I just find it ironic that a high percentage of peta members are also pro-abortion.  I guess babies aren't as cute as bunnies to some people and thus are less deserving of life.  

On that note...

[andalucia]

Jough, that was a kinda low thing to do.

[V-Adore]

Rather. Could we please attempt to have a little dignity about the situation?

[jough]

Hey, I didn't lock it!