Jump to content

LooseGoose

Want to buy some fetal body parts? Planned Parenthood's got ya covered!!

Recommended Posts

If our laws were based on this logic, we would have no laws.

Honestly, I think it's exactly the logic our laws are based upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think it's exactly the logic our laws are based upon.

Can you explain what you mean? "I'm personally opposed to it but I don't want to force my morality on others" wouldn't fly if we were talking about slavery or assault or robbing a bank. Why is this different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you explain what you mean? "I'm personally opposed to it but I don't want to force my morality on others" wouldn't fly if we were talking about slavery or assault or robbing a bank. Why is this different?

Those involve victims. Now if you want to argue that a fetus is a victim go ahead. But the fact it's attached to a human body and cannot survive without it complicates it. The science is not black and white for me. A glob of cells is not the same thing as a 34 1/2 week old inside the womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you explain what you mean? "I'm personally opposed to it but I don't want to force my morality on others" wouldn't fly if we were talking about slavery or assault or robbing a bank. Why is this different?

The key is in the universality of the view in a given self-governing population. 99 44/100% of the people can agree that murder should be illegal without having to argue why any of them agree with the premise or whether they all agree for the same reasons or even reasons based on a similar belief framework. Whenever you get any kind of significant percentage - and I've heard legal theorists say it can be as low as 10% of a population (and whatever it is it is less than the size of either side on the abortion question) - that do not agree with a particular 'moral' precept from one belief system being proposed as law for all, you are wandering into completely different waters.

Most law today is regulatory and based on practical or economic order arguments rather than morality. There are relatively few things that we legislate about purely on the grounds of anyone's moral arguments and those are exactly the ones where agreement is widespread enough that there is little controversy. Slavery a case in point - the level of disagreement on the morality of slavery was so thorough and the # of adherents on each side so large that a civil war had to be fought before that bit of one side's 'morality' could be legislated nationwide.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you explain what you mean? "I'm personally opposed to it but I don't want to force my morality on others" wouldn't fly if we were talking about slavery or assault or robbing a bank. Why is this different?

No it doesn't fly with those crimes, because of popular consensus on slavery, assult, robbery, etc. It does fly for dozens of other debatable crimes such as prostitution, gambling, drug use, assisted suicide, and abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key is in the universality of the view in a given self-governing population. 99 44/100% of the people can agree that murder should be illegal without having to argue why any of them agree with the premise or whether they all agree for the same reasons or even reasons based on a similar belief framework. Whenever you get any kind of significant percentage - and I've heard legal theorists say it can be as low as 10% of a population (and whatever it is it is less than the size of either side on the abortion question) - that do not agree with a particular 'moral' precept from one belief system being proposed as law for all, you are wandering into completely different waters.

Most law today is regulatory and based on practical or economic order arguments rather than morality. There are relatively few things that we legislate about purely on the grounds of anyone's moral arguments and those are exactly the ones where agreement is widespread enough that there is little controversy. Slavery a case in point - the level of disagreement on the morality of slavery was so thorough and the # of adherents on each side so large that a civil war had to be fought before that bit of one side's 'morality' could be legislated nationwide.

I don't know about the percentages you used but I strongly agree with everything you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those involve victims. Now if you want to argue that a fetus is a victim go ahead. But the fact it's attached to a human body and cannot survive without it complicates it. The science is not black and white for me. A glob of cells is not the same thing as a 34 1/2 week old inside the womb.

A newborn infant can't survive without help any more than a fetus can. What's the difference? Yes, it's attached to a human body, but it is also its own human body, with unique DNA. If it's human, why doesn't it get protection under the constitution? Because of its location? Its age?

I think the burden of proof is on the person who says the "glob of cells" at some mysterious point turns into something they don't like the idea of aborting. Show me where it starts being human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prostitution, gambling, drug use, assisted suicide, and abortion.

Only one of these things deliberately ends the life of a defenseless human being against its will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only one of these things deliberately ends the life of a defenseless human being against its will.

It isn't agreed that it is a human being or that it even has will, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A newborn infant can't survive without help any more than a fetus can. What's the difference? Yes, it's attached to a human body, but it is also its own human body, with unique DNA. If it's human, why doesn't it get protection under the constitution? Because of its location? Its age?

I think the burden of proof is on the person who says the "glob of cells" at some mysterious point turns into something they don't like the idea of aborting. Show me where it starts being human.

That's scientifically impossible.

The trouble with being so rigid is that if you truly do believe that having an abortion in the first trimester is killing a human being.... then don't you have to then morally support people who shoot abortion doctors and people who have abortions? Don't you have a moral obligation to stop the killing of babies at all costs? If I told you of a building where they were murdering 2 week old babies would you just stand by and let it happen? No, I think nearly everyone would feel a duty, outside of any legal authority like the police or government, to stop it, by force if necessary. The same sense of duty we'd feel if standing next to some kids and a car comes towards us and we instinctively push the kids out of the way at risk to our own lives.

If you do not not think it's a duty to stop abortion doctors at all costs then you admit to some gray area and that it's not the same thing. Therefore it's open to negotiation and discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or better yet, give me a definition of when conception has occurred that isn't arbitrarily defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A newborn infant can't survive without help any more than a fetus can. What's the difference? Yes, it's attached to a human body, but it is also its own human body, with unique DNA. If it's human, why doesn't it get protection under the constitution? Because of its location? Its age?

I think the burden of proof is on the person who says the "glob of cells" at some mysterious point turns into something they don't like the idea of aborting. Show me where it starts being human.

You might think the burden of proof lies on that person, but the Supreme Court has already ruled on it.

I'd say the burden of proof in reversing that decision lies with those who wish to see it reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't agreed that it is a human being or that it even has will, for that matter.

What is the difference between a 9-month fetus and a 1-month infant, besides its location? Work backwards from birth (where everyone agrees it is now a human with rights), and show me the point where it's logical to say starting HERE, it's not the same thing.

This is why the burden of proof should be on the side that says "go ahead and kill it." Because even if everyone doesn't agree that it's a human being one day after conception, everyone does agree it's a human being one day after it's born. And there's a clear line from one to the other. The fetus has unique DNA from conception. It's a separate life. Size, location, dependency are not reasons we kill humans.

And in terms of unborn babies not having will, have you seen an ultrasound of an abortion where the baby is trying to get away from it? It's heartbreaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with being so rigid is that if you truly do believe that having an abortion in the first trimester is killing a human being.... then don't you have to then morally support people who shoot abortion doctors and people who have abortions? Don't you have a moral obligation to stop the killing of babies at all costs? If I told you of a building where they were murdering 2 week old babies would you just stand by and let it happen? No, I think nearly everyone would feel a duty, outside of any legal authority like the police or government, to stop it, by force if necessary. The same sense of duty we'd feel if standing next to some kids and a car comes towards us and we instinctively push the kids out of the way at risk to our own lives.

If you do not not think it's a duty to stop abortion doctors at all costs then you admit to some gray area and that it's not the same thing. Therefore it's open to negotiation and discussion.

There are over 3,000 abortions per day. The way to stop this is through laws. Vigilante violence against abortionists (aside from being just as morally wrong as abortion) wouldn't have any practical effect in reducing the overall number.

Again, you don't think a first-trimester abortion kills a human being, but you can't tell me at what point it starts being a human being. Trimesters are arbitrary divisions. It's not like on the first day of the third trimester, they flip a switch and the baby's brain comes on.

If the answer to the question "does this kill an innocent human being" isn't clear, shouldn't we err on the side of not killing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our family is growing. An expectant couple have agreed to my niece and her husband as adoptive parents. Bonus came yesterday at the ultrasound when they discovered it is twin girls! We are all so excited. These will be her third and fourth adopted children. The babies are around 14-16 weeks gestation. (They know, I forget and am guessing from the due date.). Yes, I said "babies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are over 3,000 abortions per day. The way to stop this is through laws. Vigilante violence against abortionists (aside from being just as morally wrong as abortion) wouldn't have any practical effect in reducing the overall number.

Again, you don't think a first-trimester abortion kills a human being, but you can't tell me at what point it starts being a human being. Trimesters are arbitrary divisions. It's not like on the first day of the third trimester, they flip a switch and the baby's brain comes on.

If the answer to the question "does this kill an innocent human being" isn't clear, shouldn't we err on the side of not killing it?

when you write the words "kill an innocent human being" I don't think you really believe it is the case. If you really did believe it then that means you would have been ok living near a concentration camp in Poland or Germany and let other people deal with it and not physically try to help them.

Yes, I know it's an extreme example and that's the very point. I'm not saying you are a bad person.... Obviously it's a ridiculous comparison but the fact that it is is the very proof that they are not one and the same.

Just because you can't define the exact moment of a 'change' doesn't mean a change doesn't occur. That's an extension of something I learned in philosophy class, and I cannot remember the guy it's named after. The idea is that you can never get from point A to point B. The reason is that in order to do that you must travel half the distance. Each movement requires you to go half the distance. Since you can never get to 0 as there will always be a value greater than 0 at the halfway point, then it stands to reason you can never reach point B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the difference between a 9-month fetus and a 1-month infant, besides its location? Work backwards from birth (where everyone agrees it is now a human with rights), and show me the point where it's logical to say starting HERE, it's not the same thing.

This is why the burden of proof should be on the side that says "go ahead and kill it." Because even if everyone doesn't agree that it's a human being one day after conception, everyone does agree it's a human being one day after it's born. And there's a clear line from one to the other. The fetus has unique DNA from conception. It's a separate life. Size, location, dependency are not reasons we kill humans.

And in terms of unborn babies not having will, have you seen an ultrasound of an abortion where the baby is trying to get away from it? It's heartbreaking.

Again, please define conception using non-arbitrarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are over 3,000 abortions per day. The way to stop this is through laws. Vigilante violence against abortionists (aside from being just as morally wrong as abortion) wouldn't have any practical effect in reducing the overall number.

Again, you don't think a first-trimester abortion kills a human being, but you can't tell me at what point it starts being a human being. Trimesters are arbitrary divisions. It's not like on the first day of the third trimester, they flip a switch and the baby's brain comes on.

If the answer to the question "does this kill an innocent human being" isn't clear, shouldn't we err on the side of not killing it?

The fetus becomes a human being at 152 days, 4 hours, 6 minutes and 32.78 seconds.

Now abortion is ok by your rationale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fetus becomes a human being at 152 days, 4 hours, 6 minutes and 32.78 seconds.

Now abortion is ok by your rationale.

Does your number account for changes in daylight savings time during gestation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our family is growing. An expectant couple have agreed to my niece and her husband as adoptive parents. Bonus came yesterday at the ultrasound when they discovered it is twin girls! We are all so excited. These will be her third and fourth adopted children. The babies are around 14-16 weeks gestation. (They know, I forget and am guessing from the due date.). Yes, I said "babies."

Awesome news!

I'd say also post this good news in the bring a smile to your face thread. I suspect many don't enter this thread that would enter that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last thing, then I have to leave.

Anyone who says Republicans are hypocrites on abortion is CORRECT! But this is not a good argument for the morality of abortion.

Pro-life means anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-guns, helping those in poverty, adopting unwanted babies, more maternity leave, etc. etc. etc. The best way to accomplish every single one of these things is through LAWS. I want the government to make abortion illegal for the same reason I want them to outlaw the death penalty and raise taxes on the super rich and make it much, much harder to buy a gun.

I can respect this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awesome news!

I'd say also post this good news in the bring a smile to your face thread. I suspect many don't enter this thread that would enter that one.

Agree on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because you can't define the exact moment of a 'change' doesn't mean a change doesn't occur. That's an extension of something I learned in philosophy class, and I cannot remember the guy it's named after. The idea is that you can never get from point A to point B. The reason is that in order to do that you must travel half the distance. Each movement requires you to go half the distance. Since you can never get to 0 as there will always be a value greater than 0 at the halfway point, then it stands to reason you can never reach point B.

Zeno's paradox, as a fyi.

I remember learning about that one in Philosophy as well and it threw me for a loop for a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...