Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[EricHiggin]

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

So two coming together to create another is not a contract and shouldn't be?

No. It isn't. Because we don't have an understanding of the underlying circumstances.
Condom could have broken, anti-pregnancy pills could have failed... And some men who have the "snip" can have their body heal the procedure and a child later resulted.
It's a complex issue.

If they came together to create another, I don't know how that would imply anything else other than they decided to procreate. If this isn't the case, then you could simply say we don't know the reasons why the husband and wife got married either. Maybe he pretended to be something he's not and that's why she keeps getting crazier and drives him nuts, because she wants revenge for all we know. Maybe this, maybe that. If that's not what both parties agreed to then what good was the contract now that she's dead?

Even if two people come together and act in a manner that could potentially create a fetus, that shouldn't necessarily let them off the hook. If you learn to drive, pass your test, get your license, and then crash into another vehicle because you had an accident, the outcome isn't simply, 'sorry other driver, you should have known an accident could occur and a write off was a possibility, too bad so sad.' No, you're forced to have insurance to cover the costs of whatever damage you caused in the act and you pay for that, however much it is and however much it sucks. Heck if you get in enough accidents, you'll lose your license to operate any road legal vehicle for some period of time. Yet we allow people to 'come together' and be reckless or have accident after accident, and instead of using the 'insurance' to solve the problem, we just allow them to 'write it off' no matter the damage. No one loses their 'license to drive on the roads'. Mad Max rules?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

I explained he doesn't want to because he feels she is leeching off him financially and doesn't want to give her a penny more through divorce. Based on how I've described her she's not the type of woman to just up and leave with nothing. Much like the option to put the baby up for adoption after birth which some want nothing to do with.

What he feels is ultimately irrelevant. If he initiates the divorce, then so be it.

So to say what she feels is irrelevant....? Equality? If people's feelings don't matter well then...

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

How does the fetus live inside the host and how does the host survive and provide for that fetus? Nutrients? Which come from food? Which is purchased with money? Which is made by working? Etc.

You are conflating two separate issues which is a logical fallacy. You need to bring the issue back to basics.

And that is... What you are trying to assert is that an unborn fetus which is incapable of making a comprehensive Adult decision should be entitled to owning another Adult persons body.

'Adults' are also incapable of making comprehensive decisions at times. Some more so than others. Some more often than others. At what age or classification is the point in time when all your decisions are always all knowing perfection?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

You don't become an adult if you aren't given the chance to live that long. She requires a host to survive. Right now that host is her husband. If not him, she needs another person, or a job from a business that someone else runs, or hand outs from the state run by people. All biological hosts, mind you not as direct as a fetus.

Well no. She would still survive if her husband walked away and left her destitute.
She is capable of going out bush and living off the land using her own willpower without the help of any other individual.

Earth and it's biosphere are biological. Without mother Earth's womb she dies. In good faith, in terms of people themselves, how long does she have to live to be able to truly say she can survive entirely on her own? An hour? A week? A year? Just longer than a fetus could?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

If she can't dictate what he does with his body then since he used it to beat her to death he shouldn't be held accountable? So do the laws themselves matter? If abortion were made illegal and people started breaking the rules you would agree they were wrong or would it be the law that's wrong? If some laws are wrong, why bother following any of them if you don't agree with them?

He should be held accountable. It's murder.
The laws do matter.

And some laws are wrong, I still do follow them, but will campaign to get them changed or use my own voting power. - There is a right and wrong way to go about things.

It's voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

So if you 'know' a law is wrong, you will follow it anyway, meaning you yourself are aware that you're doing something wrong, but that's ok because it's the 'laws fault', yet if someone snaps and beats someone else to death, feeling justified since they've been pushed to the suicidal edge by them, and that's against the law, they should be held accountable because you 'know' those laws are right?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

So since the wife can't control the husband, it's ok for him to beat her to death, since she's the reason he felt the need to do it?

You are turning this argument into a circus, your position is so far left field of the actual issue it's turning comical.

Well if the fetus doesn't have full autonomous control over the mother's body so it doesn't get to dictate the terms, as you pointed out earlier, then if the wife doesn't have full autonomous control over the husband, she doesn't get to dictate the terms either, correct?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Err on the side of caution then correct? That's what it boils down to? Why not give the male (if he's around) an equal right to choose and potentially give the fetus a chance to live because maybe things will be ok?

Because the male doesn't own the rights to another persons body. The mothers.
If the mother is unable to make an Adult decision, then of course that decision would fall to the next of kin, which would be the partner or immediate family member. In-fact that does happen.

If you used your own 'IP' and 'product' to help create that fetus, how can you have no rights to it? Who decides if the mothers decision is an adult decision, and who's to say the fathers adult decision isn't 'more comprehensively adult' than her's?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

If the mother isn't likely to die from the fetus or wasn't raped, assume life is better than death, even if it's a 'crappy life'? Who's to say the poor mother doesn't win the lottery the week after the baby is terminated or was to be born? What if the baby get's adopted and grows up being the key reason cancer get's cured, through it's own intelligence, the foster parenting or both?

Who is to say the mother isn't hit by a truck the moment she walks out of the hospital with the baby? You are talking in a slippery slope hypothetical, which is a logical fallacy. I highly suggest you get back to basics of the issue at hand rather than over-complicating the entire thing with your thought experiment shenanigans.

If a law was passed that said nobody can procreate anymore, and the reason given was because it's possible that someday, that being could grow up and become a truck driver and may aimlessly run into a woman and her newborn baby, would you agree that law would be justified?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

How many people in 'horrible' situations who are alive today would agree that being dead would be better? There's plenty of people who think illegally crossing borders is better than death, and many who seem to think forcing them to go back and try to get in legally will possibly lead to their death's, which they say would be a terrible thing.

I work in the emergency services. You would be surprised how many people have survived a catastrophic accident and wish for other avenues to be available... Which is why I am a supporter of Euthanasia.

I had a GF for 3 years that was a paramedic. She told me quite a few stories about her encounters, on which a few occasion's she had people begging her to end their life, in which case she told me she wouldn't ever do that to someone because she felt it was wrong, no matter the pain. Her go to line if I ever showed too much weakness was "toughen up buttercup", typically said in a lighthearted, "I'm not entirely joking though" kind of tone.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

America and her full might couldn't take down Australia? I'd hope she never decides to try, because I wouldn't bet against her. No offence, she'd take down Canada too, winter or not. Like you said, much of Aus is inhospitable, so all they would need to do is focus on the most hospitable regions, and the Aus military and people would be screwed, since if forced to fall back from those area's, they wouldn't be able to remain in the inhospitable environments long themselves.

The amount of resources to take full control of Australia is a logistical nightmare.
Could the USA do it? Sure. But how much money and resources are you going to throw at it? Just think of the Trillions spent in the Middle East, that would be a drop in the bucket to invade and control an entire inhospitable continent... We are a highly advanced nation remember.

Sure you could concentrate on regions where the population is concentrated.. But I don't think you understand how much land area that still covers.... It's a vast land.

Then you would need to contend with areas that aren't under direct control, guerilla warfare and so on will become prevalent... For example... There is only a single highway linking the East and Western sides of Australia, we take that out and suddenly you are at a disadvantage.

And as a people, we have grown up in these inhospitable environments, we know how to survive, that's also big advantage for the long term.

Odds are pretty high they wouldn't attempt it unless necessary. They would of course have to do much planning, and what they would have to build up and send would be more Navy and Air Force focused, initially at least. This would be necessary as you say, because boots on the ground would be much tougher. There are also the allies that would come to the aid of Aus, but if it was America that was attacking, that would make choosing sides considerably more complicated. While short term may be doable, if you're up against the mightiest, long term is not something I would gamble on in the outback. (My paramedic GF's extended family all lived throughout Aus and she'd been there and seen much, more than a few times, before she met me.)

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Yet America is still here, is stronger, and is looking to get even mightier in the coming years and beyond.

Is it though? As a nation... From a world perspective, it's growth isn't really that impressive verses the likes of China or India.
Heck, the bulk of our trade is no longer with the USA anymore, it's with China... Not to mention China's influence is growing all around the world in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia and so on... Which in turn is almost displacing the USA in those areas.

It's still here and stronger than it was during the cold war era. China is becoming a threat which is why the trade war is happening. America has gotten too soft and has let China run wild, at America's own overall expense.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

If Trump doesn't get his way China will likely overthrow the USA eventually, but it will no doubt be messy. America isn't going to just watch itself fade into second place. It's not their style. If Trump gets his way, China will continue to grow, but America is going to boom again.

Trump really doesn't have a choice.
If anything, Trump has certainly been a great piece of entertainment, but he hasn't made the USA any more or less impressive, just more of the same.

Nothing lasts forever, one day the USA isn't going to be on top, no empire in history has ever remained on top indefinitely... And all the growth projections points to China beating the USA in the majority of metrics in the coming years.

Going to be interesting to see how the worlds dynamics shifts... Even the USA's trade embargoes with nations is becoming ineffective as China is now trading with their own Petrodollar.

He does have a choice, which is why he hasn't and isn't backing down and is pushing even harder. Rome wasn't built in a day.

One day another country will be on top, and China's growth will continue regardless, but depending on what happens with the American tariffs, it will either increase or decrease, more than potentially expected, depending on the outcome and any ripple effect.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Socialism in small doses can enhance capitalism, but too much isn't great and go too far and it tends to lead to a tipping point. If socialism made things so much better you would think a place like Canada would at least gain some attention and respect from a country like the USA, but they couldn't care less for the most part overall. America could stomp us out without much hassle if they really wanted to, and not just from a war perspective. Does that make our more socialized system better than their's?

Canada is happy to do it's own thing. But it is nice that we can agree that Socialism can enhance capitalism when done right.

Also, didn't Canada beat the USA in a war once?

I'd prefer Canada to be a little more like America. Somewhere near the middle of where we both stand now. Less socialism would be better.

Some Canadians try to take credit for it, and from time to time try to use it against the Americans to little avail. They know who the red coats really were.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

A big part of why America's military might is what it is, is because of the push for more and better, due to the incentives, and the freedom that power gives it's people. Push too much socialism in America and she'll eventually end up having a military like Canada, and they better hope another world power doesn't take over and that it's not hostile. How friendly is Aus with China?

The USA's military might has also gotten expensive and inefficient.
China is undergoing/underwent it's industrial revolution, so it's now a manufacturing powerhouse, plus it's technology prowess is ramping up extremely quickly.

Plus... Wages are extremely low in China, so the Chinese can get more bang for their buck.

And Australia is super friendly with China. They buy our shit... We buy theirs.

From an alliance/military perspective though, I think we will always pick the side of the USA... Along with New Zealand, UK, Canada, India and the bulk of Europe... Mostly because of cultural and historical connections that group us all together.

But as a middle power we have been bringing the regional powers here together for decades and working with them just fine, China included.

It is still the strongest military by far in spite of fluctuations. China's military is improving but has a long way to go. 

Wages can only be kept so low for so long. Good that your relationship is friendly and mutual.

I don't see those historical ties changing anytime soon either. Unless of course China wins bigly and you side with them going forward. lol

We try and do the same but America is next door and while that's a good thing most of the time, it can be detrimental at times.