|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 4, 2011 21:36:05 GMT -5
This was an argument used against me the other day. Basically, "if you were guaranteed control of your own body, then you'd be allowed to use drugs." I contended that laws against using drugs were intended to stop the criminal sale of drugs, but I wondered if there were other arguments about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Nov 4, 2011 21:42:29 GMT -5
Well that's a shitty argument.
It's kind of like when people argue that gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage. The only correct answer in this situation is, "Yeah? So fucking what?"
When you're inventing a slippery slope, you should at least make sure that the bottom of it is at least somewhat undesirable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Nov 4, 2011 21:45:40 GMT -5
I'm in favour of legalizing marijuana, but that's a pretty weak argument. You can't really compare the two; abortion isn't just about a woman's rights over her own body -- it's also largely an issue of preventing injury/death resulting from either a botched procedure or pregnancy complications.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 4, 2011 22:05:39 GMT -5
Well, HE said it was all about having sex without consequences, & didn't seem to believe that it could be so dangerous, but to be fair I said my chief reason for supporting it was women's rights.
It's not like he was saying "it will lead to legalizing marijuna," he was basically saying "that we don't legalize marijuna means access to safe abortions has no case."
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Nov 5, 2011 1:20:31 GMT -5
Here's how it would have gone with me:
Them: "if you were guaranteed control of your own body, then you'd be allowed to use drugs."
Me: "As it should be."
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 5, 2011 7:21:05 GMT -5
Yep... not quite following that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 7:47:06 GMT -5
It's not really hard to understand.
Claim: Women can get abortions.
Because: Women have a right to control their bodies.
Counter-Argument: They don't have that right.
Because: You can't use certain drugs, so obviously that right does not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Nov 5, 2011 7:56:47 GMT -5
It's not really hard to understand. Claim: Women can get abortions. Because: Women have a right to control their bodies. Counter-Argument: They don't have that right. Because: You can't use certain drugs, so obviously that right does not exist. Which is a cover argument for: People are having sex without consequence and I think it's my business! And yeah, the counter-argument to that nonsense is: "Yes, we do have the right to our own bodies. The government -should- get the hell out of our business when it comes to both personal autonomy in general -and- abortions/drugs in particular. The fact that it doesn't is because of people like you (the guy pitching the argument) who think it's their right to dictate the practices of other people. Now kindly fuck off." |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 8:14:02 GMT -5
I just want to make quite certain everyone's clear on what, precisely, is being disputed.
That's certainly a route I could have taken. In fact, I'm kind of wishing I had. I could have gone from that to reversing the entire argument. After all, if abortions happen, then by definition fetuses do not have an "inalienable right" to life, so the point is moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 5, 2011 18:37:59 GMT -5
I just want to make quite certain everyone's clear on what, precisely, is being disputed. That's certainly a route I could have taken. In fact, I'm kind of wishing I had. I could have gone from that to reversing the entire argument. After all, if abortions happen, then by definition fetuses do not have an "inalienable right" to life, so the point is moot. And if murder (or its state-sanctioned equivalent, the death penalty) happens, then no one has a right to life, thus undermining what pro-lifers stand for. That argument is full of so much fail it's not even funny. I think it's the most fail-tastic argument against abortion I've ever heard... |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 19:12:55 GMT -5
Not sure if either of those count, really. Murder isn't a state-sanctioned action, & the death penalty is invoked after you've lost certain rights due to committing a crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Nov 6, 2011 6:11:48 GMT -5
It's not really hard to understand. Claim: Women can get abortions. Because: Women have a right to control their bodies. Counter-Argument: They don't have that right. Because: You can't use certain drugs, so obviously that right does not exist. If weed grew out of our armpits, rather than being an external influence it might work. |
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Nov 6, 2011 23:25:30 GMT -5
Okay, what's the bad part of "sex without consequences"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Nov 6, 2011 23:27:23 GMT -5
Okay, what's the bad part of "sex without consequences"? The bible says sex is disgusting and therefore reality should reflect this. If not, then it's a sure sign of the end times. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Nov 7, 2011 2:24:39 GMT -5
And also the fact that being a woman while enjoying sex makes you a dirty whore, and you must pay for it.
|
|
