VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Seekster:
At the core of the abortion issue is the issue of personal responsibility.

What?! I thought the core of the abortion issue was that some people think that fetuses have a right to life! How, exactly, would personal responsibility have anything to do with it?

If you have sex thats your choice and you through a behavior your consent to the risks involved in that behavior. Obviously rape is not chosen nor is there consent which why the matter is debated.

Again, if the fetus is a living human being, why would this matter in the slightest?

"I think the official terminology "baby" is used when it is finished being born, and not often before."

I think that differs depending on who you ask.

Yes, some people use it very inaccurately.

"The scientific definition of life's requirement of "able to produce viable offspring" does not have the prerequisite "now"."

Well then the reproduction requirement would be fulfilled by a fetus because a fetus will become a human on its own without interference through natural process.

Indeed; it would even be fulfilled by a blastocyst as far as my interpretation of the issue goes. My sticking point isn't reproduction, it's mainly stimulus-response.

"And I think that that's a combination of opinions and beliefs, and that, as a man who claims to value "small government""

The fact that conservatives are willing to make an exception on every issue consistently should be a clue to just how important it is.

Fixed.

Now please, stop dodging my argument. How, exactly, is this idea of religious and moral freedom consistent with a ban on abortion when to even assume that abortion harms anyone, you have to make several very large assumptions and leaps of faith?

Lilani:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
-snip-

There is nothing more I'd like than to give these people a piece of my mind, however as I was looking over the bill to get started on that, look at what I found.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=121&typ=bil&val=hb462

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261.

As far as I can tell, this is more or less what was passed (I found the full wording here, but that opening line pretty much gets the gist of it). Nowhere in there does it say the type of ultrasound the woman must get. I still think this is very despicable either way, but where are people getting the idea that they are requiring a transvaginal ultrasound?

The reference to Standard medical practice in the determination of gestational age etc. The most common way nowadays for that is via a trans-vaginal ultrasound due to it being a much higher fidelity image that is produced is what is considered the standard medical practice

Seekster:
One of the most common reasons given for why people have an abortion is because it doesnt fit in with their life plans or they don't want another baby.

Citation is needed for this lie.

Seekster:
As it so happens I had a religion teacher in Catholic School who was raped and opposed abortion in cases of rape.

And because you saw that person an hour a week, suddenly you're the expert and entitled to deny half the population their constitutional rights?

Seekster:
And yes I have done a great deal of my own research on the subject so you cant argue my opposition to abortion is based on ignorance.

Yes I can. You haven't got a clue about the people you're passing judgement about, and what you want to do to them. Just because you read a few anti-choice blogs doesn't change that. Especially not that, as anti-choicers make every effort to shut out realising the consequences of their actions.

After all, who'd read up on what his own views would cause, and conclude "Gosh, I'm basically a nazi now. How morally sound. I'll continue to hold these views"? Nobody would do that. Hence the explanation why you never hear anti-choicers on what their views would cause.

Seekster:
First of all many legal experts including Supreme Court justices have said that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

Yeah, whatever. First amendment says can't force religion onto people. Thus banning abortion is unconstitutional, end of the story already.

In addition to that the US signed the UN human rights convention. Infringing of that is banned by the 9th amendment. Oh, and of course the 8th and 14th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, such as forcing to have and raise a child because they sinned against your religious teachings.

Stagnant:
What?! I thought the core of the abortion issue was that some people think that fetuses have a right to life! How, exactly, would personal responsibility have anything to do with it?

Because everybody who has an abortion is a lazy promiscuous slut who didn't want to buy a condom and gets an abortion because it's fun, and no such thing as rape or failing contraceptives exist in this world, y'know.

[/pro-life thinking]

Now if you'd excuse me, I feel a powerfull urge to wash after writing that immitation.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Not out of context no I will not agree with that statement out of context.

I'm going to ask you again. Do you believe that all life is sacred?

Yes I believe all life is sacred. That is not to say all life is equally sacred though perhaps in the eyes of God it is and should be in our eyes. I am all but certain that to God all human life is sacred though it is hard to imagine how God could think so at times.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

Amnestic:
Small Government Conservatives: Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess.

Which is why you're against the death penalty in all cases. Which is why you're against unjust wars like Iraq. Which is why you're against the common contraceptive pill which can 'abort' a fertilised egg after conception (which you believe is when life begins, right?) by preventing implantation into the womb lining.

Right? I just wanna be clear. Don't wanna misunderstand.

"Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess."

Small? It gets bigger (not government, that was a dirty joke and I apologize but I thought it was funny).

None of those things have ANYTHING to do with this issue. My position is consistent. Life, particularly human life, is sacred and should not be carelessly discarded. For this reason abortion, the death penalty, and war should only be considered as options in rare worst-case scenarios.

Also I am torn on the issue of when life begins. Some say conception and I do not agree or disagree with that. I usually go with implantation but I am not certain where I would put it. What I am certain of is that by the time you get to the second trimester you are dealing with a baby and talk of abortion past that point (except in the aforementioned worst case scenarios) is right out.

BULL... SHIT...

1) "Life, particularly human life, is sacred and should not be carelessly discarded."

2) "None of those things have ANYTHING to do with this issue."

Answer his question. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN IRAQI CIVILIAN AND A NEWLY FERTILIZED EMBRYO, IN YOUR EYES?

The answer I'm guessing comes straight from George Orwell:

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others."

With respect to Mr. Orwell I would ask what he means by that statement. Everyone is created equal sure and endowed by God (or nature if you prefer) with certain fundamental rights. However while the fundamental rights remain the equality swiftly vanishes due to the different situations a person is born in. All people are equal before the law (or at least should be). Society unfortauntely sees the life of one individual as more valuable than another and I can see why but I reject that reasoning. I believe that when you come right down to it and remove all the social protocol and established notions, all human life is fundamentally equal.

What is the difference between my life, the life of an Iraqi civilian, and a fetus (I am still debating over whether or not a newly fertilized egg can be considered a life so lets say fetus instead), and your life when it comes to inherent equality (I assume thats what you meant)? Not a damn thing.

reonhato:

Seekster:

reonhato:

typical you are free to live however you want as long as you live exactly how my religion tells you to

the day roe v wade is overturned (very unlikely) is the day america becomes no different to all the islam countries who run on sharia law

Who said anything about religion? I would be firmly against abortion, particularly abortion on demand, if I were a militant atheist too. Why? Because whether you believe in God or not life is a sacred thing and should not be so callously tossed aside just because the existence of a life would be an inconvenience.

Yeah because Roe v Wade gave women the right to drive and to walk around without burkas and to not be beaten for giving birth to a girl instead of a boy (sarcasm).

the issue is a religious issue, you have your beliefs on abortion because of your religious indoctrination. to deny there is a clear connection between religion and the legal question of abortion would be laughable

http://everydaychristian.com/blogs/post/7449/

here are some great numbers from a poll from a christian research group, they dont even try to hide the fact that a persons faith has a dramatic impact on how they view abortion. note that your view is only supported by 15% america wide, 78% though if you only ask evangelical christians.

america is suppose to be a secular country, to ban abortion based obviously on religious opinion would be unconstitutional, its amazing how often you republicans spout how so much of what obama and the "liberals" do is unconstitutional, yet one of your loudest and public issues clearly goes against the very idea of secularism.

It can be but as I said before I would be opposed to abortion even if I were an atheist, of that I am certain.

Were I indoctrinated I would be perfectly in lockstep with my religion on matters like contraception too. Bang goes your idea.

Well duh more religious people are going to oppose abortion than none religious people. Of course you shouldnt kick yourself for that, I am sincere when I say that religion is not necessary for good morality (it helps though).

The abortion issue can be a religious issue but it can be a non-religious issue too (and most often is). Not all religious people are opposed to abortion (in fact read up on the lawyers and Supreme Court justices who were critical in the Roe v Wade decision, I am ashamed to say the lawyers were from Texas and one was even elected to the state legislature).

Stagnant:

Seekster:
At the core of the abortion issue is the issue of personal responsibility.

What?! I thought the core of the abortion issue was that some people think that fetuses have a right to life! How, exactly, would personal responsibility have anything to do with it?

Right to life is what the abortion issue is about for Conservatives but at the core of the issue or the debate is the issue of personal responsibility. I explain how in the next part of my post which you quoted.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
If you have sex thats your choice and you through a behavior your consent to the risks involved in that behavior. Obviously rape is not chosen nor is there consent which why the matter is debated.

Again, if the fetus is a living human being, why would this matter in the slightest?

In terms of morality it won't. If you belief a fetus is a living human being (which I pretty much do or at the very least see a fetus as a life worth of being given a chance to keep living) then abortion is immoral no matter the circumstances. However just as killing is immoral even in times of war or in self defense, there are times when an immoral act can be justified. I have yet to decide if I personally believe that abortion in the case of rape can be justified but there is a fair debate to be had on that question.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
"I think the official terminology "baby" is used when it is finished being born, and not often before."

I think that differs depending on who you ask.

Yes, some people use it very inaccurately.

And I use it accurately, what is your issue? (If you want to be a smart ass I reserve the right to be a smart ass too)

Stagnant:

Seekster:
"The scientific definition of life's requirement of "able to produce viable offspring" does not have the prerequisite "now"."

Well then the reproduction requirement would be fulfilled by a fetus because a fetus will become a human on its own without interference through natural process.

Indeed; it would even be fulfilled by a blastocyst as far as my interpretation of the issue goes. My sticking point isn't reproduction, it's mainly stimulus-response.

Very well and what all do we consider a stimulus and the appropriate response? How can we tell when a fetus begins to experience stimuli?

Stagnant:

Seekster:
"And I think that that's a combination of opinions and beliefs, and that, as a man who claims to value "small government""

The fact that conservatives are willing to make an exception on every issue consistently should be a clue to just how important it is.

Fixed.

Now please, stop dodging my argument. How, exactly, is this idea of religious and moral freedom consistent with a ban on abortion when to even assume that abortion harms anyone, you have to make several very large assumptions and leaps of faith?

Ha ha, no.

Abortion is an issue on which conservatives are consistently willing to make an exception when it comes to small government. The main reason being because abortion was a mistake and this mistake can only be corrected by either the Supreme Court or (in a more unlikely scenario) federal and state legislatures.

Your question is factually flawed. Ending a life is clearly harmful to the life that is ended. Furthermore I understand that there have been widespread reports of depression and other mental health issues in women who have had an abortion though I do not think that is consistent in all women. Still even if its a small minority that is still evidence that abortion can be harmful both to the fetus and the mother. Physically at least we can agree that abortion as a medical procedure is safe, for the mother at least. It is not her life that is in danger in the vast majority of cases.

How interesting it is Blab that on some issues (the Occupy movement is the first that comes to mind) we can be in almost complete agreements yet on others (like this one) we exist on different planes of existence. Anyway just wanted to make that observation before moving on to your post.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
One of the most common reasons given for why people have an abortion is because it doesnt fit in with their life plans or they don't want another baby.

Citation is needed for this lie.

Oh I will gladly provide both a pro-life and a pro-choice source that say essentially the same thing on that issue:

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=womensissues&cdn=newsissues&tm=4&f=10&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Reasons%20Women%20Choose%20Abortion%20%28U.S.%29

I will assume that since you disagree with the pro-life stats you consider them invalid so I will refer to the pro-choice stats (like it matters, oh and fyi some of the pro-life stats came from the report that the pro-choice stats came from, some not all).

The following are main reasons people gave for why they had an abortion (in descending order) with the percentage of people who said yes that was a large factor in my decision next to each.

***

Having a baby would dramatically change my life (interfere with education, job, or have other dependents or children) - 74%

Can't afford a baby now - 73%

Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems - 48%

Have completed my childbearing - 38%

Not ready for a(nother) child - 32%

Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant - 25%

Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child - 22%

Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion - 14%

Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus - 13%

Physical problems with my health - 12%

Parents want me to have an abortion - 6%

Was a victim of rape - 1%

Became pregnant as a result of incest - less than 0.5%

***

Oh and just so you don't question the source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute

The Guttmacher Institute is a non-profit organization which works to advance reproductive health including abortion rights.

Some of those reasons given have some merit but only a few near the bottom are a justifiable reason for an abortion in my view. If you didn't have money for a baby then you should have invested in contraceptives and if you didnt have money for that what were you doing having unprotective sex and furthermore you can still put the child up for adoption, you don't HAVE to pay for the child.

Was that a good enough citation for you?

Blablahb:

Seekster:
As it so happens I had a religion teacher in Catholic School who was raped and opposed abortion in cases of rape.

And because you saw that person an hour a week, suddenly you're the expert and entitled to deny half the population their constitutional rights?

Again, show me in the constitution where there is a bit that even implies abortion is a fundamental right.

The mention of my teacher was in response to your snide comment about rape and for the record it was closer to an hour a day.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
And yes I have done a great deal of my own research on the subject so you cant argue my opposition to abortion is based on ignorance.

Yes I can. You haven't got a clue about the people you're passing judgement about, and what you want to do to them. Just because you read a few anti-choice blogs doesn't change that. Especially not that, as anti-choicers make every effort to shut out realising the consequences of their actions.

After all, who'd read up on what his own views would cause, and conclude "Gosh, I'm basically a nazi now. How morally sound. I'll continue to hold these views"? Nobody would do that. Hence the explanation why you never hear anti-choicers on what their views would cause.

I tend not to read blogs with a few exceptions, none of those include pro-life blogs or anti-life blogs (I did warn you about this anti-life nonsense didnt I. If you want to use loaded terms I will use them too). I give pregnant women the benefit of the doubt but as the statistic I posted show, even though some reasons given are understandable few are justifiable in my view. Also I take great pains to make sure I know what I am talking about on this issue because it is one that is very important to me.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
First of all many legal experts including Supreme Court justices have said that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

Yeah, whatever. First amendment says can't force religion onto people. Thus banning abortion is unconstitutional, end of the story already.

In addition to that the US signed the UN human rights convention. Infringing of that is banned by the 9th amendment. Oh, and of course the 8th and 14th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, such as forcing to have and raise a child because they sinned against your religious teachings.

I am unfamiliar with the specific section of the UN human rights convention to demands abortion be legal so please do point that one out.

As for the US Constitution (the only document you mentioned that matters when it comes to domestic laws in the US):

The Supreme Court rejected the 9th Amendment rationale in Roe v Wade (in fact the decision had more to do with the rights of physicians than the rights of women, look it up).

The 8th amendment was not even brought up in the lawsuit and its insulting to call childbirth cruel or unusual (painful sure but it is neither cruel or unusual).

The first part of the 14th Amendment is the only relevant one (the second has to do with how representatives of the states shall be approtioned and the third section basically restricts the ability of former confederates to be elected to high office). It states

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yes it does say "all persons born" which would not apply to a fetus or unborn child but surely you know what the 14th Amendment was made in response to. Here is a hint, it was ratified in 1868 and the 13th has to do with the abolishion of slavery.

In short I agree with White and Rehnquist who offered the dissenting opinion that is now widely agreed with in the legal world that Justice Blackmun essentially made up the right to abortion, as the dissenting opinion put it:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand."

And as Rehnquist elaborated:

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today."

I am not a legal expert, but I daresay Rehnquist most certainly is. Oh and so are Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, Yale Law professor John Hart Ely, Law professor Laurence Tribe, Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt III, and I could go one but I have made my point. Even Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who loved and respected Blackmun like a grandfather wrote "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

That and many many other reasons are why Roe v Wade is the greatest mistake the Supreme Court has made since the Dred Scott decision (and at least the Dred Scott decision had a shaky constitutional basis, Roe v Wade has no constitutional basis whatsoever).

Educate yourself please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Legal

Seekster:
Yes I believe all life is sacred.

I've got you on record for saying that, good. Now, since according to you all life is sacred, do you believe that killing living things for our convenience is morally justifiable?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Yes I believe all life is sacred.

I've got you on record for saying that, good. Now, since according to you all life is sacred, do you believe that killing living things for our convenience is morally justifiable?

Oh the liberal game of using quotes out of context (well to be fair some conservatives do it to but they can't compete with liberals at this game), fine ill play along.

Depends on what we are talking about. Killing and eating animals is necessary to survive (we are omnivores that means both plants AND animals are on the menu). Sure you can argue that hunting for sport is morally questionable.

Killing in self defense (ie kill or be killed or even risk being killed) is morally justifiable.

Seekster:
Depends on what we are talking about. Killing and eating animals is necessary to survive (we are omnivores that means both plants AND animals are on the menu). Sure you can argue that hunting for sport is morally questionable.

The only way that would make sense from a moral point of view is if you agree that not all life is, in fact, sacred. Remember, you cannot think of this issue in relative terms. There are no such things as degrees of sacredness. If all life is sacred then killing a living being to aid in your survival is a morally unjustifiable action since you'd have to assert some form of superiority and conclude that your life is more important than someone else's life and that would conflict with your statement that all life is sacred. The only way you can justify killing animals to aid in your survival is if you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred.

So, do you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred?

You get marriage in one state and in return government sponsored rape in another. America is the worst country(outside of African countries) ever in my eyes again. This goes beyond horrific. I honestly think the Republicans are evil now. Not misguided, or retarded, but pure Chaotic Evil. This is nothing but malevolence and malice.

Fuck it. I'm pro-abortion now. For no other reason then to spite these guys.

Of course, there are alternatives.

First and foremost: my appreciation on the improved quote structuring, it makes the post a lot easier to parse.

Seekster:
Right to life is what the abortion issue is about for Conservatives but at the core of the issue or the debate is the issue of personal responsibility. I explain how in the next part of my post which you quoted.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
If you have sex thats your choice and you through a behavior your consent to the risks involved in that behavior. Obviously rape is not chosen nor is there consent which why the matter is debated.

Again, if the fetus is a living human being, why would this matter in the slightest?

In terms of morality it won't. If you belief a fetus is a living human being (which I pretty much do or at the very least see a fetus as a life worth of being given a chance to keep living) then abortion is immoral no matter the circumstances. However just as killing is immoral even in times of war or in self defense, there are times when an immoral act can be justified. I have yet to decide if I personally believe that abortion in the case of rape can be justified but there is a fair debate to be had on that question.

Huh. So... murder can be justified. Not just that, but it can be justified by an action to which with the victim of the murder holds absolutely no responsibility. To give a perhaps analogous example: because of the extreme psychological pain my family is putting me through, I'm justified in killing my roommate. Interesting. Very, very interesting.

Very well and what all do we consider a stimulus and the appropriate response? How can we tell when a fetus begins to experience stimuli?

This is somewhat beyond my area of expertise; I'm not a scientist. I think I know who might know, though: The Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Just sayin'.

Abortion is an issue on which conservatives are consistently willing to make an exception when it comes to small government. The main reason being because abortion was a mistake and this mistake can only be corrected by either the Supreme Court or (in a more unlikely scenario) federal and state legislatures.

"Mistake". Yes, because the issue of abortion is so clear-cut and set in stone that it's worth throwing away political principles over, political principles so deeply set that they tend to ignore even the greatest of good that can be performed through an extent of government.

Your question is factually flawed. Ending a life is clearly harmful to the life that is ended.

Therefore pork is murder. When I say "anyone", do I really have to specify that I'm talking about living human persons? Hell, even this claim that it's "ending a life" is, when seen purely scientifically, completely wrong. Sure, you believe that human life starts well before then. But alas, your problem is that you are entitled to your own beliefs, not your own facts, and the fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, it has yet to be demonstrated prior to the third trimester that that thing is even alive to begin with!

Furthermore I understand that there have been widespread reports of depression and other mental health issues in women who have had an abortion though I do not think that is consistent in all women.

This could be heavily attributed to the severe emotional trauma heaped on them by the societal stigma of abortion (which would be yet another case of such societal barriers not stopping the cause, but making the symptoms far worse).

Still even if its a small minority that is still evidence that abortion can be harmful both to the fetus and the mother. Physically at least we can agree that abortion as a medical procedure is safe, for the mother at least. It is not her life that is in danger in the vast majority of cases.

Fair enough. There may be (essentially negligible) psychological damages to the mother, the kind of thing that an individual in a free society can generally undertake of their own free will.

I'm sorry but this where I have to put my foot down.

Seekster:
Oh the liberal game of using quotes out of context (well to be fair some conservatives do it to but they can't compete with liberals at this game), fine ill play along.

The reason that ""Liberals"" use your quotes out of context is because you make absolutes. By saying:

I believe all life is sacred

You create an absolute. ALL life is sacred, no exceptions. There is no such thing as context in a stance like this, except where you want to bend your own rules to suit yourself.

Depends on what we are talking about. Killing and eating animals is necessary to survive (we are omnivores that means both plants AND animals are on the menu). Sure you can argue that hunting for sport is morally questionable.

And you could argue that stapping down a woman to a table, and essentially raping her in order to bully her into siding with your viewpoint is morally questionable.

Killing in self defense (ie kill or be killed or even risk being killed) is morally justifiable.

And what is self-defense exactly? Are you telling me that Korea, Viet- Hell, EVERY war that the US has been involved in since 1946 until 2002 was morally justifiable?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Depends on what we are talking about. Killing and eating animals is necessary to survive (we are omnivores that means both plants AND animals are on the menu). Sure you can argue that hunting for sport is morally questionable.

The only way that would make sense from a moral point of view is if you agree that not all life is, in fact, sacred. Remember, you cannot think of this issue in relative terms. There are no such things as degrees of sacredness. If all life is sacred then killing a living being to aid in your survival is a morally unjustifiable action since you'd have to assert some form of superiority and conclude that your life is more important than someone else's life and that would conflict with your statement that all life is sacred. The only way you can justify killing animals to aid in your survival is if you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred.

So, do you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred?

Its immoral but not unjustifiable. Killing Bin Laden was technically immoral but Ill be damned if it wasnt justifiable.

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:
Oh the liberal game of using quotes out of context (well to be fair some conservatives do it to but they can't compete with liberals at this game), fine ill play along.

The reason that ""Liberals"" use your quotes out of context is because you make absolutes. By saying:

I believe all life is sacred

You create an absolute. ALL life is sacred, no exceptions. There is no such thing as context in a stance like this, except where you want to bend your own rules to suit yourself.

Sure there is, and if you actually read the context then you would know that.

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:
Depends on what we are talking about. Killing and eating animals is necessary to survive (we are omnivores that means both plants AND animals are on the menu). Sure you can argue that hunting for sport is morally questionable.

And you could argue that stapping down a woman to a table, and essentially raping her in order to bully her into siding with your viewpoint is morally questionable.

No thats just immoral.

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:
Killing in self defense (ie kill or be killed or even risk being killed) is morally justifiable.

And what is self-defense exactly? Are you telling me that Korea, Viet- Hell, EVERY war that the US has been involved in since 1946 until 2002 was morally justifiable?

War is immoral but some can be justifiable. Most of the ones the US has been in since 1946 werent really justifiable but it was considered necessary at the time.

Seekster:

Sure there is, and if you actually read the context then you would know that.

Well then, if ALL life is sacred, how can you justify the Death Penalty in that context, remembering that ALL life is sacred? (Apologies if this is a strawman, I've had a long week).

No thats just immoral.

I'm relieved that that the whole thread can agree on this, while an extreme hypothetical example, it could happen very easily under this law and it show the extremes the GOP are willing to go.

War is immoral but some can be justifiable. Most of the ones the US has been in since 1946 werent really justifiable but it was considered necessary at the time.

I still find it hypocritical that the party taking the Moral high ground is the one responsible for two unecessary and illegal wars against a feeble enemy.

You could appreciate it more by actually having my name in front of the quotes instead of just having say quote in the little box. Otherwise its hard to tell if I am attributing a quote to the right person.

Stagnant:
Huh. So... murder can be justified. Not just that, but it can be justified by an action to which with the victim of the murder holds absolutely no responsibility. To give a perhaps analogous example: because of the extreme psychological pain my family is putting me through, I'm justified in killing my roommate. Interesting. Very, very interesting.

Just because something is justifiable doesnt mean its moral. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you or is even trying to rob you you can shoot and kill that person. Technically its immoral but its absolutely justifiable. Would you consider something like that murder?

Stagnant:

"Mistake". Yes, because the issue of abortion is so clear-cut and set in stone that it's worth throwing away political principles over, political principles so deeply set that they tend to ignore even the greatest of good that can be performed through an extent of government.

Saying abortion is a fundamental right according to the Constitution and not having any basis for that is a mistake yes.

Stagnant:

Therefore pork is murder. When I say "anyone", do I really have to specify that I'm talking about living human persons? Hell, even this claim that it's "ending a life" is, when seen purely scientifically, completely wrong. Sure, you believe that human life starts well before then. But alas, your problem is that you are entitled to your own beliefs, not your own facts, and the fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, it has yet to be demonstrated prior to the third trimester that that thing is even alive to begin with!

Pork isnt murder, its a food. (If you are going to say something silly...)

There is no universally accepted definition for when life begins so neither you nor I can say the other is wrong, not that I expect that to stop either of us.

Stagnant:

This could be heavily attributed to the severe emotional trauma heaped on them by the societal stigma of abortion (which would be yet another case of such societal barriers not stopping the cause, but making the symptoms far worse).

As far as I am concerned there SHOULD be social stigma for having an abortion. It is rarely if ever justifiable if you ask me (which you are given that this is a forum asking for views on the subject). Shame can be a very powerful deterrent.

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:

Sure there is, and if you actually read the context then you would know that.

Well then, if ALL life is sacred, how can you justify the Death Penalty in that context, remembering that ALL life is sacred? (Apologies if this is a strawman, I've had a long week).

No thats just immoral.

I'm relieved that that the whole thread can agree on this, while an extreme hypothetical example, it could happen very easily under this law and it show the extremes the GOP are willing to go.

War is immoral but some can be justifiable. Most of the ones the US has been in since 1946 werent really justifiable but it was considered necessary at the time.

I still find it hypocritical that the party taking the Moral high ground is the one responsible for two unecessary and illegal wars against a feeble enemy.

As I said, just because something is justifiable doesnt make it moral. The death penalty involves ending the life of a human being and is therefore immoral. However I believe the death penalty, just like war or abortion, CAN be justified as an option of last resort (in the case of the death penalty, someone for whom life in prison is simply not justice but I digress).

Good I'm glad the GOP or at least part of it is glad to go that far to fix this horrendous mistake. I don't feel comfortable with all parts of the person hood view but it ends abortion and thats good enough for me. The problems it causes can be fixed later on. Also I very much doubt that the personhood thing would survive a serious legal challenge for reasons not related to abortion.

Neither political party has any claim to moral high ground first of all and second of all all wars are legal in the first person (and the very idea of an illegal war is laughable to me).

Seekster:

As I said, just because something is justifiable doesnt make it moral. The death penalty involves ending the life of a human being and is therefore immoral. However I believe the death penalty, just like war or abortion, CAN be justified as an option of last resort (in the case of the death penalty, someone for whom life in prison is simply not justice but I digress).

Well what do you believe is the difference between jusfiable and moral then?

Good I'm glad the GOP or at least part of it is glad to go that far to fix this horrendous mistake. I don't feel comfortable with all parts of the person hood view but it ends abortion and thats good enough for me. The problems it causes can be fixed later on. Also I very much doubt that the personhood thing would survive a serious legal challenge for reasons not related to abortion.

Personally I feel that increased emphasis on preventative measures (Sex education, family planning etc) would be more effective in stopping abortions rather than outright bullying and reducing womens rights.

Neither political party has any claim to moral high ground first of all and second of all all wars are legal in the first person (and the very idea of an illegal war is laughable to me).

I was looking at the GOP themselves. in terms of wars, the Democrats aren't much better (Goldwater was honest about wanting to go to Vietnam) but what pisses me off about the GOP is that they are the ones who usually claim the high ground (particulary in social issues) which makes them the hypocrites.

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:

As I said, just because something is justifiable doesnt make it moral. The death penalty involves ending the life of a human being and is therefore immoral. However I believe the death penalty, just like war or abortion, CAN be justified as an option of last resort (in the case of the death penalty, someone for whom life in prison is simply not justice but I digress).

Well what do you believe is the difference between jusfiable and moral then?

Good I'm glad the GOP or at least part of it is glad to go that far to fix this horrendous mistake. I don't feel comfortable with all parts of the person hood view but it ends abortion and thats good enough for me. The problems it causes can be fixed later on. Also I very much doubt that the personhood thing would survive a serious legal challenge for reasons not related to abortion.

Personally I feel that increased emphasis on preventative measures (Sex education, family planning etc) would be more effective in stopping abortions rather than outright bullying and reducing womens rights.

Neither political party has any claim to moral high ground first of all and second of all all wars are legal in the first person (and the very idea of an illegal war is laughable to me).

I was looking at the GOP themselves. in terms of wars, the Democrats aren't much better (Goldwater was honest about wanting to go to Vietnam) but what pisses me off about the GOP is that they are the ones who usually claim the high ground (particulary in social issues) which makes them the hypocrites.

Both those words are kind of hard to define in this context.

Yes those kinds of things would be better than bullying or trampling on women's rights or what the GOP tends to do (the implication being obvious).

The GOP are hypocrites because they at least have principles but do stupid things. If you dont stand on any principles I guess you can't be a hypocrite.

Seekster:

Both those words are kind of hard to define in this context.

This is why I have a major problem with absolutes in this context, this isn't a black/white issue but rather Light Gray/Dark Gray. Personally I can't decide whether or not abortion is right or wrong, but I am still pro-choice as I see the whole matter as having too many different circumstances to warrant an absolute law on the matter.

Yes those kinds of things would be better than bullying or trampling on women's rights or what the GOP tends to do (the implication being obvious).

Reading this has cheered me up today.

The GOP are hypocrites because they at least have principles but do stupid things. If you dont stand on any principles I guess you can't be a hypocrite.

Honestly can you even say there is a Right/Left in the US anymore? Can we go with Insanity/Apathy instead?

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:

Both those words are kind of hard to define in this context.

This is why I have a major problem with absolutes in this context, this isn't a black/white issue but rather Light Gray/Dark Gray. Personally I can't decide whether or not abortion is right or wrong, but I am still pro-choice as I see the whole matter as having too many different circumstances to warrant an absolute law on the matter.

Yes those kinds of things would be better than bullying or trampling on women's rights or what the GOP tends to do (the implication being obvious).

Reading this has cheered me up today.

The GOP are hypocrites because they at least have principles but do stupid things. If you dont stand on any principles I guess you can't be a hypocrite.

Honestly can you even say there is a Right/Left in the US anymore? Can we go with Insanity/Apathy instead?

I think realistically an ideal law prohibits abortion in all but a few circumstances, I think Poland has something similar (allows it in cases of rape, incest, or for health issues, etc). Abortion because you don't want to raise the child and putting them up for adoption is too much of a hassel is despicable to me.

Yes there is still a right and a left in the United States, just as in every country. Right and left are relative terms.

Seekster:

Yes there is still a right and a left in the United States, just as in every country. Right and left are relative terms.

I'm aware, it was just a snark.

Ninjamedic:

Seekster:

Yes there is still a right and a left in the United States, just as in every country. Right and left are relative terms.

I'm aware, it was just a snark.

For example the left in Saudi Arabia thinks it might be ok to maybe let women vote in some elections.

Seekster:
Just because something is justifiable doesnt mean its moral. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you or is even trying to rob you you can shoot and kill that person. Technically its immoral but its absolutely justifiable. Would you consider something like that murder?

Of course not. But here's the thing - do you understand why it is justifiable? Why it is all right to kill someone in self-defense, but not just randomly? It has to do with fault. As far as my understanding goes, the argument is that someone has infringed your rights, and you have every right to take action to restore said rights by necessary means. In the case of someone attempting to cause you bodily harm, anything is justified to ensure this.

A fetus, however, is innocent. The justification that exists for cases such as self-defense do not exist here. In the case of rape, the fetus-person is essentially an innocent third party. So what could you possibly use to justify it? Oh right, what most people would use: The Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Seekster:
Saying abortion is a fundamental right according to the Constitution and not having any basis for that is a mistake yes.

I'm not 100% sure of the details of the case, but I am certain that a case could be made using one of the few documents out there which truly trump the constitution: The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Specifically, the woman's right to prevalence over her own body. And remember:

Seekster:
There is no universally accepted definition for when life begins so neither you nor I can say the other is wrong, not that I expect that to stop either of us.

It is precisely because of this, we cannot abridge the woman's right to her own body for the sake of something which may or may not be a living human in the first place - or, more accurately, to which the question of "is it a living human" is highly subjective! I fail to see how one could ever possibly be anti-choice, and yet still hold true that freedom of religion and conscience are important, when one keeps these simple arguments in mind.

Seekster:
As far as I am concerned there SHOULD be social stigma for having an abortion. It is rarely if ever justifiable if you ask me (which you are given that this is a forum asking for views on the subject). Shame can be a very powerful deterrent.

I'm left wondering... what justification does the woman have to abort the fetus other than the sovereignty of her own body? Remember, the fetus is, for all intents and purposes, entirely innocent - it lacks the mental capacity to be guilty of anything. It is an innocent third party in the case of rape causing pregnancy.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Just because something is justifiable doesnt mean its moral. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you or is even trying to rob you you can shoot and kill that person. Technically its immoral but its absolutely justifiable. Would you consider something like that murder?

Of course not. But here's the thing - do you understand why it is justifiable? Why it is all right to kill someone in self-defense, but not just randomly? It has to do with fault. As far as my understanding goes, the argument is that someone has infringed your rights, and you have every right to take action to restore said rights by necessary means. In the case of someone attempting to cause you bodily harm, anything is justified to ensure this.

A fetus, however, is innocent. The justification that exists for cases such as self-defense do not exist here. In the case of rape, the fetus-person is essentially an innocent third party. So what could you possibly use to justify it? Oh right, what most people would use: The Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Clarify something to me, how can you believe a fetus is not alive and yet innocent at the same time?

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Saying abortion is a fundamental right according to the Constitution and not having any basis for that is a mistake yes.

I'm not 100% sure of the details of the case, but I am certain that a case could be made using one of the few documents out there which truly trump the constitution: The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Specifically, the woman's right to prevalence over her own body. And remember:

Seekster:
There is no universally accepted definition for when life begins so neither you nor I can say the other is wrong, not that I expect that to stop either of us.

It is precisely because of this, we cannot abridge the woman's right to her own body for the sake of something which may or may not be a living human in the first place - or, more accurately, to which the question of "is it a living human" is highly subjective! I fail to see how one could ever possibly be anti-choice, and yet still hold true that freedom of religion and conscience are important, when one keeps these simple arguments in mind.

But its not just her body we are talking about here. A woman has a right to choose yes, that choice extends to everything before the pregnancy. A woman's right to choose what happens to her own body does not extend to her child's body and certainly doesnt include ending a child's life. Its true out of the womb so why isnt it true inside the womb?

Stagnant:

Seekster:
As far as I am concerned there SHOULD be social stigma for having an abortion. It is rarely if ever justifiable if you ask me (which you are given that this is a forum asking for views on the subject). Shame can be a very powerful deterrent.

I'm left wondering... what justification does the woman have to abort the fetus other than the sovereignty of her own body? Remember, the fetus is, for all intents and purposes, entirely innocent - it lacks the mental capacity to be guilty of anything. It is an innocent third party in the case of rape causing pregnancy.

Again, I want to hear how you, someone who doesnt think a fetus is alive, thinks a fetus can be innocent? Seems like a contradiction to me.

Seekster:
Clarify something to me, how can you believe a fetus is not alive and yet innocent at the same time?

I'm not working from my mindset here. I'm entertaining your presuppositions and epistemology for the sake of argument. This argument is taken from the assumption that the fetus is a living person, which I do not believe - again, it's simply for the sake of argument.

Seekster:
But its not just her body we are talking about here. A woman has a right to choose yes, that choice extends to everything before the pregnancy. A woman's right to choose what happens to her own body does not extend to her child's body and certainly doesnt include ending a child's life. Its true out of the womb so why isnt it true inside the womb?

...Because the difference is "growing inside of her body, completely dependent on her for all nourishment, while simultaneously causing all kinds of physical and mental problems" vs. "growing outside of her body, independent of her, not necessarily causing her physical or mental problems". That's a pretty key difference.

But again, you're still ignoring my fucking argument and until you address it, I'm going to have to ask you to stop presumptuously arguing as though Cletus the Fetus is equivalent to little Bobby over there. That's exactly what we're trying to establish as true or false here.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Clarify something to me, how can you believe a fetus is not alive and yet innocent at the same time?

I'm not working from my mindset here. I'm entertaining your presuppositions and epistemology for the sake of argument. This argument is taken from the assumption that the fetus is a living person, which I do not believe - again, it's simply for the sake of argument.

Seekster:
But its not just her body we are talking about here. A woman has a right to choose yes, that choice extends to everything before the pregnancy. A woman's right to choose what happens to her own body does not extend to her child's body and certainly doesnt include ending a child's life. Its true out of the womb so why isnt it true inside the womb?

...Because the difference is "growing inside of her body, completely dependent on her for all nourishment, while simultaneously causing all kinds of physical and mental problems" vs. "growing outside of her body, independent of her, not necessarily causing her physical or mental problems". That's a pretty key difference.

But again, you're still ignoring my fucking argument and until you address it, I'm going to have to ask you to stop presumptuously arguing as though Cletus the Fetus is equivalent to little Bobby over there. That's exactly what we're trying to establish as true or false here.

You don't think children cause mental health problems outside the womb?

Seriously though once you accept that a fetus is alive and innocent than killing one for a flimsy reason is just not right, especially considering there are lots of ways (cheaper and much easier to do) to you know, not get pregnant in the first place.

I'm not ignoring your argument because you don't have one or havnt given one. Lets here your argument in favor of abortion then, I am curious to see if there is an argument that can be given in favor of abortion that actually stands on its own merits.

I forget when did you say you thought a fetus became a baby?

Seekster:
You don't think children cause mental health problems outside the womb?

Sometimes I wonder if you're missing the point on purpose.

Seriously though once you accept that a fetus is alive and innocent than killing one for a flimsy reason is just not right, especially considering there are lots of ways (cheaper and much easier to do) to you know, not get pregnant in the first place.

Like in this post. A lot. I'M NOT ACCEPTING THAT. I'm merely using your premises to go down a line of argumentation and try to demonstrate to you that even in the case of rape, abortion is completely impermissible.

I'm not ignoring your argument because you don't have one or havnt given one. Lets here your argument in favor of abortion then, I am curious to see if there is an argument that can be given in favor of abortion that actually stands on its own merits.

...Oh for fuck's sake, I have been repeating this argument in various forms for pages now.

Abortion could be justified using one of the few documents out there which truly trump the constitution: The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Specifically, the woman's right to prevalence over her own body. And remember: there is no universally accepted definition for when life begins so neither you nor I can say the other is wrong. It is precisely because of this that we cannot abridge the woman's right to control over her own body for the sake of something which may or may not be a living human being in the first place - or, more accurately, to which the question of "is it a living human" is highly subjective! I fail to see how one could ever possibly be anti-choice, and yet still hold true that freedom of religion and conscience are important, when one keeps these simple arguments in mind.

You cannot refute this argument without assuming that a fetus is a living person. This, however, is not a fair assumption by any stretch of the imagination.

I forget when did you say you thought a fetus became a baby?

Birth.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
You don't think children cause mental health problems outside the womb?

Sometimes I wonder if you're missing the point on purpose.

Nah I was just being clever in response to an irrelevant point (its really not the baby's fault that you have some strange mental problems associated with pregnancy sometimes).

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Seriously though once you accept that a fetus is alive and innocent than killing one for a flimsy reason is just not right, especially considering there are lots of ways (cheaper and much easier to do) to you know, not get pregnant in the first place.

Like in this post. A lot. I'M NOT ACCEPTING THAT. I'm merely using your premises to go down a line of argumentation and try to demonstrate to you that even in the case of rape, abortion is completely impermissible.

Its still immoral but yes you are making a few of the same points I have made to myself sometime, its not the Baby's fault the woman got raped so why should the Baby suffer. On the other hand I just can't bring myself to tell a woman who was raped "you have to have this baby". Mind you both my mother and my aforementioned religion teacher probably would be able to say that. I don't know maybe its just because I'm a guy.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I'm not ignoring your argument because you don't have one or havnt given one. Lets here your argument in favor of abortion then, I am curious to see if there is an argument that can be given in favor of abortion that actually stands on its own merits.

...Oh for fuck's sake, I have been repeating this argument in various forms for pages now.

Abortion could be justified using one of the few documents out there which truly trump the constitution: The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Specifically, the woman's right to prevalence over her own body. And remember: there is no universally accepted definition for when life begins so neither you nor I can say the other is wrong. It is precisely because of this that we cannot abridge the woman's right to control over her own body for the sake of something which may or may not be a living human being in the first place - or, more accurately, to which the question of "is it a living human" is highly subjective! I fail to see how one could ever possibly be anti-choice, and yet still hold true that freedom of religion and conscience are important, when one keeps these simple arguments in mind.

You cannot refute this argument without assuming that a fetus is a living person. This, however, is not a fair assumption by any stretch of the imagination.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man does not trump the Constitution of the United States, I don't even think its recognized as a basis for laws in this country.

Since there is no universally accepted definition for when life begins it only seems prudent to err on the side of caution instead of running the risk that we may have legalized murdering innocents (which is the argument of many pro-life people). Besides even you have to agree that making contraception more readily available and cheaper and providing more sex education would be a more effective, more efficient, and cheaper way to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Take the money spent on abortion and use it to fund those other things I mentioned and everybody gets what they want.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I forget when did you say you thought a fetus became a baby?

Birth.

So its ok to kill the fetus a day before the birth or is there a point where you would not support killing a fetus?

Seekster:
snip

From a moral standpoint, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then any killing is unjustifiable. You also failed to answer my question. Do you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred?

I think this measure is absurd. While i'm morally against abortion i also realize it's a very sensitive and delicate subject and prefer to keep the freedom of choice. It would be much better to just improve sex ed and awareness related to these subjects to avoid unwanted pregnancies. "It's better to prevent than to cure"

Seekster:
snip

I spent a while writing a long response, but then my browser ate it. -.- So here's the short version:

If you can't bring yourself to force the woman to have the baby, then one of two things is happening:
1. You are morally repugnant and willing to kill an innocent third party for the convenience of someone (even if they have already been put through the wringer, this is really bad). Akin to, say, someone being allowed to kill the Jehovah's Witnesses at the door because they were attacked by an insane man with a knife.
2. You don't actually believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same rights that you or I have.
I think the latter is true. I honestly think that there are very, very few people who genuinely believe, when it really comes down to it, that a fetus is deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. Those few people (your mother, Santorum) tend to get a lot of flack when they bring that opinion out into the public arena... And it should be clear why.

The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions.

"Baby" is a general term for a born human being. That doesn't mean that I consider it a recipient of the general rights of humans at birth, it's simply an accurate definition of the term. My limit on abortions that are not directly endangering the mother is approximately the 24th week, where the fetus starts obtaining limited brain functions.

Why is this thread still going on when, as far as I can see, every one of Seek's arguments was demolished within the first two pages and he has not presented anything new? All he's done is have the same arguments with different people, with occasional attempts to re-define terms or shift the argument onto something he has a firmer footing on: 'It's about responsibility'.

He's contradicting his earlier words and, when called out on it, accuses the critique of employing 'liberal tricks' when all that's been done is the identification of an inconsistency: 'Life is sacred... context...'. It worries me that the application of logic is considered a 'trick'. Moreover, he is even engaging in debates which he had previously stated he had no interest in, in an attempt to gain the rhetorical high ground:

We have gone into the "when is a fetus a person" thing before where we look at one week or another. I'd rather go deeper and broader in this argument instead of getting bogged down on which week do we draw the line.

So its ok to kill the fetus a day before the birth or is there a point where you would not support killing a fetus?

He's even ignored these two posts completely. I can't afford benefit of the doubt to that when quotes are sent to your inbox. I'll restate the summary again:

In short, the arguments for a ban of abortion are that:

1. It's ending life.
2. It's killing people.

1. Is answered with a big 'so what?' We don't really care about life in general, and neither does the universe. You cannot use 'God' as a valid argument. Life's not particularly rare- hell, it's probably inevitable- nor does it really do anything most of the time. We end life all the time to make our lives more convenient. Why not terminate some more blobs of cells for convenience and the avoidance of heartache and problems later. They're not even remotely people yet.

2. Ah, but they say that embryos and foetuses are people. This is countered by solid scientific fact. Embryos simply aren't people. If you think they are, you're wrong. Foetuses aren't either up to a point. They don't feel pain, think, move, breath, or speak. That point is where we draw the line- before they could be called 'people'. There's no slippery slope here. The only characteristic Embryos and early Foetuses have in common is that they represent a potential human life. However, that argument is absurd.

So, really, there's no reason except for personal preference, and the personal preferences of one group of people should not be forced on the others. That's how pluralist democracies work. You can still not abort your foetus/embryo if you want to, but you've got no right to interfere with other people's lives.

Danny Ocean:
Why is this thread still going on when, as far as I can see, every one of Seek's arguments was demolished within the first two pages and he has not presented anything new? All he's done is have the same arguments with different people, with occasional attempts to re-define terms or shift the argument onto something he has a firmer footing on: 'It's about responsibility'.

He's contradicting his earlier words and, when called out on it, accuses the critique of employing 'liberal tricks' when all that's been done is the identification of an inconsistency: 'Life is sacred... context...'. It worries me that the application of logic is considered a 'trick'. Moreover, he is even engaging in debates which he had previously stated he had no interest in, in an attempt to gain the rhetorical high ground:

We have gone into the "when is a fetus a person" thing before where we look at one week or another. I'd rather go deeper and broader in this argument instead of getting bogged down on which week do we draw the line.

So its ok to kill the fetus a day before the birth or is there a point where you would not support killing a fetus?

He's even ignored these two posts completely. I can't afford benefit of the doubt to that when quotes are sent to your inbox. I'll restate the summary again:

In short, the arguments for a ban of abortion are that:

1. It's ending life.
2. It's killing people.

1. Is answered with a big 'so what?' We don't really care about life in general, and neither does the universe. You cannot use 'God' as a valid argument. Life's not particularly rare- hell, it's probably inevitable- nor does it really do anything most of the time. We end life all the time to make our lives more convenient. Why not terminate some more blobs of cells for convenience and the avoidance of heartache and problems later. They're not even remotely people yet.

2. Ah, but they say that embryos and foetuses are people. This is countered by solid scientific fact. Embryos simply aren't people. If you think they are, you're wrong. Foetuses aren't either up to a point. They don't feel pain, think, move, breath, or speak. That point is where we draw the line- before they could be called 'people'. There's no slippery slope here. The only characteristic Embryos and early Foetuses have in common is that they represent a potential human life. However, that argument is absurd.

So, really, there's no reason except for personal preference, and the personal preferences of one group of people should not be forced on the others. That's how pluralist democracies work. You can still not abort your foetus/embryo if you want to, but you've got no right to interfere with other people's lives.

Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

From a moral standpoint, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then any killing is unjustifiable. You also failed to answer my question. Do you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred?

No all life is sacred and it is immoral to take a life.

Having said that I think the point is worth clarifying that not all life is equally sacred. A human life for example is more sacred than that of a animal and certainly more than a plant. That is what I believe anyway.

Also you seem to not grasp what I said earlier. Just because something is immoral does not mean it cannot be justified. Do you not understand this? If you don't I can give you more examples.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
snip

I spent a while writing a long response, but then my browser ate it. -.- So here's the short version:

If you can't bring yourself to force the woman to have the baby, then one of two things is happening:
1. You are morally repugnant and willing to kill an innocent third party for the convenience of someone (even if they have already been put through the wringer, this is really bad). Akin to, say, someone being allowed to kill the Jehovah's Witnesses at the door because they were attacked by an insane man with a knife.
2. You don't actually believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same rights that you or I have.
I think the latter is true. I honestly think that there are very, very few people who genuinely believe, when it really comes down to it, that a fetus is deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. Those few people (your mother, Santorum) tend to get a lot of flack when they bring that opinion out into the public arena... And it should be clear why.

The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions.

"Baby" is a general term for a born human being. That doesn't mean that I consider it a recipient of the general rights of humans at birth, it's simply an accurate definition of the term. My limit on abortions that are not directly endangering the mother is approximately the 24th week, where the fetus starts obtaining limited brain functions.

Hate is when the browser does that, you have my sincere sympathies.

I disagree with both of your ideas and for the record you may want to look at this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

It is you, not I, who is in the minority, in the United States at least. European countries see themselves as ahead of the curve, what they call a curve I call a precipice and they are running headlong over it.

"The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions."

Which is more important, the right to privacy or the right to life? Any sane person will answer life so I assume you will as well. Now then if indeed we are not certain whether or not a fetus is a life then it only makes sense that the side of caution would be to avoid the possibility of violating the right to life than to avoid the possibility of violating the right to privacy (which again is pretty shaky, a woman has an absolute right to her own body yes, but we arent just talking about her body).

At the absolute least our civilization should ban or heavily restrict the use of abortion after the beginning of the Second Trimester.

Seekster:

Danny Ocean:
Why is this thread still going on when, as far as I can see, every one of Seek's arguments was demolished within the first two pages and he has not presented anything new? All he's done is have the same arguments with different people, with occasional attempts to re-define terms or shift the argument onto something he has a firmer footing on: 'It's about responsibility'.

He's contradicting his earlier words and, when called out on it, accuses the critique of employing 'liberal tricks' when all that's been done is the identification of an inconsistency: 'Life is sacred... context...'. It worries me that the application of logic is considered a 'trick'. Moreover, he is even engaging in debates which he had previously stated he had no interest in, in an attempt to gain the rhetorical high ground:

We have gone into the "when is a fetus a person" thing before where we look at one week or another. I'd rather go deeper and broader in this argument instead of getting bogged down on which week do we draw the line.

So its ok to kill the fetus a day before the birth or is there a point where you would not support killing a fetus?

He's even ignored these two posts completely. I can't afford benefit of the doubt to that when quotes are sent to your inbox. I'll restate the summary again:

In short, the arguments for a ban of abortion are that:

1. It's ending life.
2. It's killing people.

1. Is answered with a big 'so what?' We don't really care about life in general, and neither does the universe. You cannot use 'God' as a valid argument. Life's not particularly rare- hell, it's probably inevitable- nor does it really do anything most of the time. We end life all the time to make our lives more convenient. Why not terminate some more blobs of cells for convenience and the avoidance of heartache and problems later. They're not even remotely people yet.

2. Ah, but they say that embryos and foetuses are people. This is countered by solid scientific fact. Embryos simply aren't people. If you think they are, you're wrong. Foetuses aren't either up to a point. They don't feel pain, think, move, breath, or speak. That point is where we draw the line- before they could be called 'people'. There's no slippery slope here. The only characteristic Embryos and early Foetuses have in common is that they represent a potential human life. However, that argument is absurd.

So, really, there's no reason except for personal preference, and the personal preferences of one group of people should not be forced on the others. That's how pluralist democracies work. You can still not abort your foetus/embryo if you want to, but you've got no right to interfere with other people's lives.

Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

How about

1.Scientifically it is FACT that a fetus does not even begin to develop the neural connections required for consciousness until around the 3rd trimester. Consciousness is the fundamental factor behind what makes us what we are. To cater to this FACT most countries do not allow 3rd trimester abortions unless the life of the mother to be is in danger.

2. It is a FACT that more than 99% of abortions in the US take place before the 24th week, even further is that a large majority of these (around 90%) occur within 12 weeks, a point at which the science is extremely clear on, that clump of cells is not a person.

3. Even if you use the 'potential' person argument it is FACT that the right of the women to choose what to do with her own body trumps a 'potential' anything every single day of the week.

You can argue beliefs all you want but the fact is the scientific community does not consider a fetus to be a person. As a Conservative Christian you put your fingers in your ears and go "lah lah lah can't hear you" whenever someone brings up science though, so that is really the core issue here.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked