Pro-choice Arguments, Anti-abortion Dilemmas - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 07-07-2010, 11:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
suchgreatheight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 435
I feel as though in the prior abortion threads, while there has been much back and forth between pro-choice and anti-abortion participants, while there have been serious attempts to engage with the anti-abortion arguments, in terms of their actual logic, fewer and less rigorous efforts have been made with regard to the pro-choice arguments.



The strongest pro-choice arguments have been largely ignored, while people argue superficially about semantics (what “life
suchgreatheight is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 07-07-2010, 11:58 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Fascinating thank you. I'm already completely pro-choice anyway but I didn't know a lot of that information.
GhostUser is offline  
#3 Old 07-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kibbleforlola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,483
I have nothing constructive to add, but great post, suchgreatheight. I'm gonna mull it over and then come back to discuss.

Who needs sleep when we've got love?
Who needs keys when we've got clubs?
Who needs please when we've got guns?
Who needs peace when we've gone above?
Kibbleforlola is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 07-07-2010, 06:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Josh James xVx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,097
I would also add that while it's certainly not true of all people, there's usually a pattern in elected officials who try to stop or limit abortion rights. If you pay close attention, it's usually the same kinds of people who vote against women's rights in general, such as fair working wages and tougher sentences for rapists. Usually. Not always. I know a lot of progressives are pro-life too, but they are by and away proportionally dwarfed by the conservatives. So even if you're pro-life, be wary of supporting certain politicians based on a single issue or you may do more harm than good with your vote.

Tam! RUGH!
Josh James xVx is offline  
#5 Old 07-07-2010, 11:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Oh, go on then. One point at a time though ..



Quote:
Originally Posted by suchgreatheight' date='07 July 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1278528480' post='2670310 View Post


The strongest pro-choice arguments:



A fetus is radically different from a baby in the following relevant ways:







1.a. fetuses do not have the neuroanatomy to feel pain before 30 weeks - given that the vast majority of abortions take place before 22 weeks - no fetuses with sufficiently developed neuroanatomy are aborted. In contrast, babies can and do feel pain. If a fetus is not sentient, then it is different in morally relevant ways from a baby: it is not an entity which moral concerns must be extended to anymore than a vegetable is except for purely speciesist reasons.



This argument is basicaly that if something cannot feel pain at the moment in time that it is intentionaly killed then there is no moral argument against intentionaly killing it?



Say then that I happen upon someone who is totaly unconscious. Totally unresponsive to any pain stimuli.



Would there be a moral (moral NOT practical) reason why, as they can feel no pain at that moment in time, I should not kill them?
Clueless Git is offline  
#6 Old 07-08-2010, 12:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
sosoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='08 July 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1278572153' post='2670645 View Post


Oh, go on then. One point at a time though ..







This argument is basicaly that if something cannot feel pain at the moment in time that it is intentionaly killed then there is no moral argument against intentionaly killing it?



Say then that I happen upon someone who is totaly unconscious. Totally unresponsive to any pain stimuli.



Would there be a moral (moral NOT practical) reason why, as they can feel no pain at that moment in time, I should not kill them?

I don't see how your reduction follows, at all, from what was stated.

Something that is not sentient, and never has been sentient, is different from something that has been sentient, and is sentient.
sosoy is offline  
#7 Old 07-08-2010, 04:29 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,056
while your arguments are well laid out, opponents of abortion couldn't care any less about the facts. they couldn't care any less about forcing unwanted children on unwilling parents. they couldn't care any less that the world is already vastly overpopulated. the instant an egg is fertilized, they view that it has the right to birth which supercedes anything else, including a woman's right to make any other choice except giving birth. given these assumptions, we're at an impasse, as clueless git will demonstrate in this thread. it's extremley difficult to override one's sense of morality with logical arguments. otherwise, it's a great speech to the choir .
papayamon is offline  
#8 Old 07-08-2010, 05:17 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy' date='08 July 2010 - 08:50 AM' timestamp='1278575409' post='2670669 View Post


I don't see how your reduction follows, at all, from what was stated.

Something that is not sentient, and never has been sentient, is different from something that has been sentient, and is sentient.

Yuss, my hypothetical unconscious person has been sentient and will, on the assumption that he she is allowed the time to regain consciousness will become sentient.



He/she is, however, NOT sentient at the moment in time I want to know if there is a moral argument against killing him or her.



If there is an argument that, if I don't intervene with an intentional killing, he/she will become sentient then that argument applies equaly to an unborn. If allowed to live the unborn will become sentient.



That would leave only the question of it is morally wrong to kill something soley on the basis that it has previously been sentient.



If that argument is to be upheld then it also has to be upheld that switching off life support machines, for instance, is equaly wrong or the argument becomes a SPECIAL PLEADING to remove the right to life exclusively from the unborn.
Clueless Git is offline  
#9 Old 07-08-2010, 05:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
DaftLikeAFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='08 July 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1278591456' post='2670724 View Post


Yuss, my hypothetical unconscious person has been sentient and will, on the assumption that he she is allowed the time to regain consciousness will become sentient.



He/she is, however, NOT sentient at the moment in time I want to know if there is a moral argument against killing him or her.



If there is an argument that, if I don't intervene with an intentional killing, he/she will become sentient then that argument applies equaly to an unborn. If allowed to live the unborn will become sentient.



That would leave only the question of it is morally wrong to kill something soley on the basis that it has previously been sentient.



If that argument is to be upheld then it also has to be upheld that switching off life support machines, for instance, is equaly wrong or the argument becomes a SPECIAL PLEADING to remove the right to life exclusively from the unborn.



Isn't that covered in "2 a"?
DaftLikeAFox is offline  
#10 Old 07-08-2010, 05:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
sosoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='08 July 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1278591456' post='2670724 View Post


Yuss, my hypothetical unconscious person has been sentient and will, on the assumption that he she is allowed the time to regain consciousness will become sentient.



He/she is, however, NOT sentient at the moment in time I want to know if there is a moral argument against killing him or her.



If there is an argument that, if I don't intervene with an intentional killing, he/she will become sentient then that argument applies equaly to an unborn. If allowed to live the unborn will become sentient.



That would leave only the question of it is morally wrong to kill something soley on the basis that it has previously been sentient.



If that argument is to be upheld then it also has to be upheld that switching off life support machines, for instance, is equaly wrong or the argument becomes a SPECIAL PLEADING to remove the right to life exclusively from the unborn.

I think an important distinction is that the unconscious person would be returning to sentience, which is different from becoming sentient, as is the case with an embryo.
sosoy is offline  
#11 Old 07-08-2010, 05:27 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayamon' date='08 July 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1278588554' post='2670706 View Post


while your arguments are well laid out, opponents of abortion .

Oh, in the name of all that makes loves to spiders !!!!



I can say ...



"Supporters of abortion couldn't care any less about the facts .. etc, etc, .. as Papayamon will demonstrate in this thread"



Chucking bricks that can just be picked up and thrown straight back at you does NOT constitute an intelligent argument.
Clueless Git is offline  
#12 Old 07-08-2010, 05:53 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaftLikeAFox' date='08 July 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1278591802' post='2670726 View Post


Isn't that covered in "2 a"?

As I'm very likely to be single handed on this untill the cavalry arrives I'm going to have to go one point at a time Fox.



Currently dealing with point 1a which is specificaly an argument that it is ok to kill someone/thing that can not feel pain at the time of killing.



Discussion of point 2a rather depends on if point 1a is upholdable, or not.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy' date='08 July 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1278591853' post='2670727 View Post


I think an important distinction is that the unconscious person would be returning to sentience

In my original hypothetical situation, possibly, yes.



In the life support machine analogy, not necessarily so, no.







Not being rude with short answers, btw, just trying my best under severe time limitations to give SGH a half decent debate in return for the huge effort she obviously put into formulating this topic.
Clueless Git is offline  
#13 Old 07-08-2010, 06:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,339
I only have a little time but you opening statment has a double standard onthe requirements for defeating a position.



In summary, you stated that for the pro-life position to be invalidated you only need to defeat one point, but for the pro-choice arguement to be defeated you had to defeat all points.



Your opening statement essentially "pre-determines" that the pro-life position is invalid, therefior an objective analysis of the validity of the pro-life aguement can not be made.

Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#14 Old 07-08-2010, 06:18 AM
Veggie Regular
 
DaftLikeAFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='08 July 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1278593605' post='2670738 View Post


As I'm very likely to be single handed on this untill the cavalry arrives I'm going to have to go one point at a time Fox.



Currently dealing with point 1a which is specificaly an argument that it is ok to kill someone/thing that can not feel pain at the time of killing.



Discussion of point 2a rather depends on if point 1a is upholdable, or not.



It does seem directly relevant to what you're asking, though:



Quote:
An organism that has never attained consciousness, or will never resume consciousness, is not morally equivalent to one that has had consciousness and will have consciousness in the future. It has no memories, no sensation, no sense of self or others, no subjective mind.



I think not all of these points are entirely separate things.
DaftLikeAFox is offline  
#15 Old 07-08-2010, 06:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
sosoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='08 July 2010 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1278593605' post='2670738 View Post


...

In my original hypothetical situation, possibly, yes.

In the life support machine analogy, not necessarily so, no.

...

I was talking about this:

Quote:
If there is an argument that, if I don't intervene with an intentional killing, he/she will become sentient then that argument applies equaly to an unborn. If allowed to live the unborn will become sentient.

It does not apply equally to the fetus because the fetus has not been sentient.



The life support analogy doesn't help at all, because it (unless I am mistaken) is about the chance of having someone return to us from a coma or something. There is no person to return to us from an embryo - unless maybe you believe in reincarnation, but even then, they'll just pop into another embryo maybe?
sosoy is offline  
#16 Old 07-08-2010, 09:25 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaftLikeAFox' date='08 July 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1278595130' post='2670747 View Post


It does seem directly relevant to what you're asking, though:



... I think not all of these points are entirely separate things.

'Lo Fox, they may or may not be seperate things.



They may or not be worth debating the merits, or lack of, once the validity of point 1a has been proven or disproven.



At this time the argument that there is no moral objection to killing something during a time band in which it cannot feel pain is very far from established.
Clueless Git is offline  
#17 Old 07-08-2010, 10:23 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy' date='08 July 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1278595282' post='2670749 View Post

It does not apply equally to the fetus because the fetus has not been sentient

Unless prior sentience ranks highly in the 'right to life' then prior sentience as opposed to present sentience or future sentience then that is not relevant.



The life support machine analogy was the best I could think of to isolate the importance of prior sentience in peoples moral framework of what determines the right to life and what doesn't.



Quote:
... The life support analogy doesn't help at all, because it (unless I am mistaken) is about the chance of having someone return to us from a coma or something.

Take the life support machine analogy only to apply to those who are not going to return from the coma/whatever.



If, in your own moral framework, you would turn life support off then you rank the chances of future sentience higher than you rank the importance of prior sentience.



Only those who would NOT turn the life support machine off under any circumstances rank prior sentience as being more important than future sentience.
Clueless Git is offline  
#18 Old 07-08-2010, 11:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineVigneault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 343
Does the person in a coma require a uterus as his/her habitat?
ElaineVigneault is offline  
#19 Old 07-08-2010, 11:47 AM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
Until a man can get knocked up (and no the transsexual who gave birth doesn't count), it not up to a man to tell me or any other women for that matter what she can or cannot do with her own body in regards to childbirth.
hollywoodveg is offline  
#20 Old 07-08-2010, 11:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
suchgreatheight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter' date='08 July 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1278594501' post='2670742 View Post


I only have a little time but you opening statment has a double standard onthe requirements for defeating a position.



In summary, you stated that for the pro-life position to be invalidated you only need to defeat one point, but for the pro-choice arguement to be defeated you had to defeat all points.



Your opening statement essentially "pre-determines" that the pro-life position is invalid, therefior an objective analysis of the validity of the pro-life aguement can not be made.





I can understand why you would think this, but this is not logically correct.



For a proposition that a given moral position is justified to be reasonable, it only needs a single undefeated justification.



Additional justifications are not necessary, since it has already been justified upon the first justification being offered and undefeated.



But if a proposition has an internal contradiction, then it renders itself false by way of the fallacy of self-refutation: it violates the 'law of non-contradiction.'





Given this, a single unrefuted justification is sufficient to make a proposition reasonable, but a single internal contradiction is sufficient to render a proposition false.



Because this thread is about the pro-choice position and not the anti-abortion position, I advanced pro-choice justifications, any one of which, as explained, is if not refuted, sufficient to demonstrate the pro-choice position reasonable...and I also discussed anti-abortion internal contradictions, any one of which is, as described, sufficient to make that variant of the anti-abortion position unreasonable.



If someone would like to make a thread advancing anti-abortion justifications (of which there are many, but I believe they are refutable) and exposing pro-choice contradictions (if any exist) - they are welcome to do so. In such a thread the inverse would apply - a single unrefutable anti-abortion justification would be sufficient to make that position reasonable, and a single unreconciled pro-choice contradiction would be sufficient. However, that is not this thread.



Note however I also never claimed that either of the internal contradictions is sufficient to render any anti-abortion position false, only the specific variants I described. An adherent of an overtly patriarchal anti-abortion position, for example, would be immune to those critiques since the internal contradictions mentioned would likely not be present.



Given this, there is absolutely no double standard for proof, rather there is merely a different level of focus: this is a thread focusing on what I take to be *the best* pro-choice justifications and raising certain anti-abortion contradictions, and not the other way around, nor is it a thread addressing all possible justifications for either side, or inventing additional alleged contradictions on either side.
suchgreatheight is offline  
#21 Old 07-08-2010, 12:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
suchgreatheight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 435
Quote:
Clueless Git

Currently dealing with point 1a which is specificaly an argument that it is ok to kill someone/thing that can not feel pain at the time of killing.



Discussion of point 2a rather depends on if point 1a is upholdable, or not.





Argument 1.a. proposes that a fetus under 30 weeks does not have the neuroanatomy necessary to experience pain, Argument 2.a. proposes that a fetus prior to birth is not and has never been awake, and thus is also non-sentient for a second reason and for a longer duration of time. Given that, 2.a. does not depend on 1.a. - however were your argument persuasive, it would be sufficient to refute both of them. However, it is not, as will be described below.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='08 July 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1278609821' post='2670877 View Post


Unless prior sentience ranks highly in the 'right to life' then prior sentience as opposed to present sentience or future sentience then that is not relevant.



The life support machine analogy was the best I could think of to isolate the importance of prior sentience in peoples moral framework of what determines the right to life and what doesn't.





Take the life support machine analogy only to apply to those who are not going to return from the coma/whatever.



If, in your own moral framework, you would turn life support off then you rank the chances of future sentience higher than you rank the importance of prior sentience.



Only those who would NOT turn the life support machine off under any circumstances rank prior sentience as being more important than future sentience.





This is an interesting argument.



However, you have incorrectly framed the question. As I will explain below, the issue is not prior sentience vs future potential sentience, rather it is prior sentience with the potential for future sentience vs. potential future sentience absent prior sentience.



This is the actual difference between a sleeping person and a never sentient fetus that could potentially be sentient later in the future.



It is also the morally relevant distinction between one acquires self interest only when they acquire sentience. Before sentience, there is no self, no mind, and therefore no interests, and without any interests, there is no relevance. However, once sentience is acquired, one gains a mind and with it an interest in maintaining that mind in the future.



Similarly, someone who is in a coma from which they can never come out of, which is to say, someone with prior sentience, but no potential for future sentience, also has no interests, and is also not morally relevant. This is because, while they had interests, those interests are exhausted without the potential for the continuity of their mind; their mind will never be active again and so they can never acquire an awareness of self interest again - thus, they have no interest in the future since their mind can never be again operable.



So, as you can see, the question is not prior sentience vs future sentience, but prior sentience with the potential for future sentience, vs no prior sentience, or no potential for future sentience.











Finally, I should say, that I will not indefinitely reply to exchanges with you on this one point unless you are going to reply to my other arguments in the original post. I'm happy to continue to talk about this but I don't want this thread to be reduced from a post offering many arguments to one that discusses only a single argument - that would not be as worthwhile for everyone I don't think (or at least not for me). My aim is to seriously explore ideas here not to have a rhetoric contest, so sticking only to an perceived weakest point is not helpful. Having said that I am happy to continue to defend points 1.a. and 2.a. if you are happy to address the other points as well.





As a side note, I do not believe in a "right to life" (instead a negative right not be unjustifiably killed, a right not to be exploited, but not a positive right to life)
suchgreatheight is offline  
#22 Old 07-08-2010, 01:20 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywoodveg' date='08 July 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1278614852' post='2670905 View Post


Until a man can get knocked up (and no the transsexual who gave birth doesn't count), it not up to a man to tell me or any other women for that matter what she can or cannot do with her own body in regards to childbirth.



unfathomably sexist that you'd deny anti abortion males the control of your uterus after you became preganant. i am shocked and offended.
papayamon is offline  
#23 Old 07-08-2010, 01:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
suchgreatheight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywoodveg' date='08 July 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1278614852' post='2670905 View Post


Until a man can get knocked up (and no the transsexual who gave birth doesn't count), it not up to a man to tell me or any other women for that matter what she can or cannot do with her own body in regards to childbirth.



Sure, but then, just because someone can be pregnant doesn't mean they should have any right to tell other women what they can and can't do wit their pregnancies. A woman can demand legal and social protection for a fetus only if its the one inside her.
suchgreatheight is offline  
#24 Old 07-08-2010, 02:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
When women are the majority in Congress we can worry about this kind of a princess problem.
hollywoodveg is offline  
#25 Old 07-09-2010, 12:02 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by suchgreatheight' date='08 July 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1278617014' post='2670917 View Post

This is an interesting argument.

Thank you



Quote:
Similarly, someone who is in a coma from which they can never come out of, which is to say, someone with prior sentience, but no potential for future sentience, also has no interests, and is also not morally relevant. This is because, while they had interests, those interests are exhausted without the potential for the continuity of their mind; their mind will never be active again and so they can never acquire an awareness of self interest again - thus, they have no interest in the future since their mind can never be again operable.



We appear to be agreed that prior sentience is not relevant when no potential for future sentience exists then?



Quote:
However, you have incorrectly framed the question. As I will explain below, the issue is not prior sentience vs future potential sentience, rather it is prior sentience with the potential for future sentience vs. potential future sentience absent prior sentience.



Now you appear to be placing relevance on prior sentience again in order to argue that potential sentience is not enough on its own.



In the life support machine analogy the importance of future sentience, or lack thereof was upheld and prior sentience deemed irrelevant?



If so then to immediately reintroduce prior sentience as being of critical importance looks like a 'special pleading' to me.
Clueless Git is offline  
#26 Old 07-09-2010, 12:10 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayamon' date='08 July 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1278620445' post='2670950 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywoodveg' date='08 July 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1278614852' post='2670905 View Post


Until a man can get knocked up (and no the transsexual who gave birth doesn't count), it not up to a man to tell me or any other women for that matter what she can or cannot do with her own body in regards to childbirth.



unfathomably sexist that you'd deny anti abortion males the control of your uterus after you became preganant. i am shocked and offended.

My last post, all five lines of it, took over an hour of reading, re-reading, thought and consideration before I plonked it down.



I have no doubt at all that SGH is putting massive time, effort and thought into her posts too.



I very much doubt that those two posts took more than 30 seconds and 3 brain cells between them.



If it is too much to ask that you show respect for others then could I politely suggest that you at least show some respect for yourselves?
Clueless Git is offline  
#27 Old 07-09-2010, 12:21 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineVigneault' date='08 July 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1278614581' post='2670903 View Post


Does the person in a coma require a uterus as his/her habitat?

I am familar with the logic that taking up residence in your mothers womb, when she only intended to get her jollies off of your dad, is a crime that some regard as punishable by death.



It is a crime that everyone contributing to this topic, realising their 'potential sentience', enjoying all the choices that come with being alive, etc, has committed Elaine.
Clueless Git is offline  
#28 Old 07-09-2010, 02:39 AM
Veggie Regular
 
sosoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='09 July 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1278658940' post='2671179 View Post

...

Now you appear to be placing relevance on prior sentience again in order to argue that potential sentience is not enough on its own.



In the life support machine analogy the importance of future sentience, or lack thereof was upheld and prior sentience deemed irrelevant?



If so then to immediately reintroduce prior sentience as being of critical importance looks like a 'special pleading' to me.

Where was it said that prior sentience is not required? Prior sentience is an absolute requirement. Without having at some point achieved sentience, you have no claim on a 'right to life' (I'd rather say a 'right to continued sentience' ).
sosoy is offline  
#29 Old 07-09-2010, 03:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineVigneault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git' date='09 July 2010 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1278660069' post='2671185 View Post


I am familar with the logic that taking up residence in your mothers womb, when she only intended to get her jollies off of your dad, is a crime that some regard as punishable by death.



It is a crime that everyone contributing to this topic, realising their 'potential sentience', enjoying all the choices that come with being alive, etc, has committed Elaine.

Regarding my mother and her jolies: your description of my conception is entirely off base.

I won't go into details; just warning you not to make unfounded assumptions about people whom you know nothing.
ElaineVigneault is offline  
#30 Old 07-09-2010, 10:44 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy' date='09 July 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1278668347' post='2671231 View Post


Where was it said that prior sentience is not required?

Read SGH's post.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineVigneault' date='09 July 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1278672235' post='2671254 View Post


Regarding my mother and her jolies: your description of my conception is entirely off base.

I won't go into details; just warning you not to make unfounded assumptions about people whom you know nothing.

'You' and 'yours' can be used generically, I think?



If not then apologies for my poor grammar.
Clueless Git is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off