A civil debate on the abortion issue

[Atreus21]

Abortions are not possible on sentient, aware children.

At what point does a child become sentient and aware then? Somehow it all snaps into place at birth?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Because there are justifications for deliberately killing the guilty.
There are also justifications for accidentally killing the innocent.
Can you think of any justification for deliberately killing the innocent?

"The innocent" are newborns. People who kill them are charged and convicted of murder. To be innocent, a human must be able to think and perceive, not just exist, because both innocence and guilt are totally psychological. By the time this is possible a human offspring is ready to be born.

 

[Atreus21]

Crying is also a response to discomfort but unless you have a source for that, I'm not sure I believe it anyway.

That in no way changes what I wrote.

Well it kinda does, because you said crying shows intent, which is your pre-qualification for innocence. So since children cry in the womb, are they innocent in the womb?

Because ALL of those things requires action or formation of conscious intent. The unborn is capable of neither of those things. And I've written that already. It's not even a victim. The act of abortion has no effect on its prior inability to act or form intent.

So if you're incapable of action or unconscious, you can't be victimized, correct?

And you also show that the woman is innocent (unless she is a criminal).

That's right, she is.

So once again...why do you value that invented 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum, over the innocence and life of women?

Please answer that question before asking more.

Because averting abortion doesn't necessarily kill an innocent human being. Abortion does.

 

[Atreus21]

"The innocent" are newborns. People who kill them are charged and convicted of murder. To be innocent, a human must be able to think and perceive, not just exist, because both innocence and guilt are totally psychological. By the time this is possible a human offspring is ready to be born.

Where do you guys get this definition of innocence? Certainly not from any dictionary. Innocence means having done nothing wrong, justifying no punishment or consequence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thought or intent.

 

[Lursa]

Well it kinda does, because you said crying shows intent, which is your pre-qualification for innocence. So since children cry in the womb, are they innocent in the womb?

Nope...it's also a reaction. Sorry you dont get the simple black and white answer you want.

And thanks for source. No they are not innocent in the womb by any definition you provided. They cannot act or form intent. They are all 'reaction' to stimuli...processes of lesser developed nervous systems.

So if you're incapable of action or unconscious, you can't be victimized, correct?

You can be victimized. Has nothing to do with being innocent tho...unless every single person, even criminals, is 'innocent' while asleep? :roll:

That's right, she is.

Please specify what she is guilty of?

Otherwise, I call desperate BS on your part.

Because averting abortion doesn't necessarily kill an innocent human being. Abortion does.

So? Even if I bought that premise, there is no way to ensure the health or life of the woman. None...so 'averting' abortion is conscious acceptance of willingness to exchange the life of the woman for that of the unborn. Not only that, use of force...law, physical, societal...would be needed, imposing fear, pain, and suffering on the woman. Not a single thing there that holds any moral High Ground.

So again, why do you value the innocence of emptiness of the unborn more than innocent women's lives?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Atreus21]

Re: A question of definition

First of all, in the legal/moral arena we're discussing, there are very few simple questions of any sort.

Secondly, as I've pointed out, Blacks were not alone in lacking the franchise in colonial nor in the fledgling US. The vast majority - some 94% - of the population were also denied the franchise.

But since we're here, please point out where the law says that Blacks were inferior, sub-human, during the time the law said they were.

The 3/5th of a person language has to do with the census, in the language establishing it in the Constitution. That has nothing to do with the legal status of the slaves, it was a sweetener to get the antebellum South to support the Constitution.

Slavery was legal once. Does that mean it was morally right? That's it.

 

[Lursa]

Where do you guys get this definition of innocence? Certainly not from any dictionary. Innocence means having done nothing wrong, justifying no punishment or consequence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thought or intent.

And your use of it is the same as for a flower or couch. They are also empty vessels that are innocent only by default...they have no choice, they can be nothing but empty of intent.

The innocence you value is meaningless. Do you also value the innocence of a flower or a couch more than an innocent pregnant woman? All you are doing is using 'innocence' as a criteria to justify a life. For the unborn...it is empty, a vacuum. In women, it is a actual character attribute where she has a choice to BE innocent. Why do you value that innocence of emptiness more than the innocence of women? What is a pregnant woman guilty of?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Free Thinker]

From the looks of it, certainly I wouldnt support laws based only on your morality.

And obviously you dont support those we have now that 'your morality' doesnt agree with.

Not much of an argument there.

Just saying if you take an honest look at who is aborting their babies this is what you have. Dismiss me as a bigot if it's more convenient but I speak a truth I was fairly certain most of you don't have an appetite to face in a realistic fashion.

 

[southwest88]

Call the question

At what point does a child become sentient and aware then? Somehow it all snaps into place at birth?

You're chasing a chimera there. If we understood sentience & self-awareness perfectly, we'd long ago have developed Artificial Intelligence in our machines. In any event, such considerations are - currently - beyond the pale.

The legal definition of a person doesn't depend upon its sentience & awareness. For US law, it's sufficient that the fetus has been born. If there are subsequent shortfalls in normal physical or metal development, they can be addressed as necessary.

Somehow it all snaps into place at birth? - This is mere sarcasm - it's hardly worthy of being called civil.

 

[Free Thinker]

Of course not. Babies in the womb respond to voices from outside at a fairly early time.

 

[Lursa]

Just saying if you take an honest look at who is aborting their babies this is what you have. Dismiss me as a bigot if it's more convenient but I speak a truth I was fairly certain most of you don't have an appetite to face in a realistic fashion.

Many women that abort are married, many already have kids. If some one cannot afford a child or another child (as you imply) why on earth would it be fodder for criticism? Abortion is a responsible choice to avoid added burden on taxpayers, community resources, etc.

Most couples do use birth control, not all, but ~2/3. No bc is 100% effective so some accidents will occur, it's mathematical reality.

Who is demonstrating 'lack of an appetite' to face the realities of the difficulties of unplanned parenthood or abortion?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Atreus21]

Nope...it's also a reaction. Sorry you dont get the simple black and white answer you want.

And thanks for source. No they are not innocent in the womb by any definition you provided. They cannot act or form intent. They are all 'reaction' to stimuli...processes of lesser developed nervous systems.

Why is an unborn child's cry only a reaction whereas a newborn's is evidence of intent? You don't think you're employing rather selective interpretations?

You can be victimized. Has nothing to do with being innocent tho...unless every single person, even criminals, is 'innocent' while asleep? :roll:

Well yes, they're innocent in the sense that they didn't deserve to die.

Please specify what she is guilty of?

Otherwise, I call desperate BS on your part.

She's not guilty. I agreed with you that she is innocent.

So? Even if I bought that premise, there is no way to ensure the health or life of the woman. None...so 'averting' abortion is conscious acceptance of willingness to exchange the life of the woman for that of the unborn. Not only that, use of force...law, physical, societal...would be needed, imposing fear, pain, and suffering on the woman. Not a single thing there that holds any moral High Ground.

Not so. It's not an exchange of one life for another. No one has to die. Very rarely, pregnancies are lethal, and no one expects women to deliver when their lives are at risk.

So again, why do you value the innocence of emptiness of the unborn more than innocent women's lives?

That's an inaccurate description of the situation. It's not a case of "choose who dies", as you suggest here. No one has to die. It's not a competition between two people with a right to life. It's party A seeking to kill party B because party B is troublesome and difficult to the well-being of party A.

 

[southwest88]

Re: A question of definition

Slavery was legal once. Does that mean it was morally right? That's it.

As I pointed out before, slavery in England was not legal @ the time of the American Revolution. See Slavery in Britain - Wikipedia

"Slavery in Great Britain existed and was recognised from before the Roman occupation until the 12th century, when chattel slavery disappeared, at least for a time, after the Norman Conquest. Former slaves merged into the larger body of serfs in Britain and no longer were recognized separately in law or custom.[1][2]

"From the 17th century into the 19th century, transportation to the colonies as a criminal or an indentured servant served as punishment for both serious and petty crimes, or for simply being poor and viewed as an 'undesirable', facilitated by the Transportation Act of 1717.[3] During the same period, workhouses employed people whose poverty left them no other alternative than to work under forced labour conditions."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

As Colonial/US law largely derived from British law, that means that slavery was not legal in the colonies nor nascent US either, until the US states began to incorporate slavery into their lawmaking. (Even though there was some discussion of slavery in the US Constitution, & policy on slavery was set @ the national level.)

 

[Atreus21]

And your use of it is the same as for a flower or couch. They are also empty vessels that are innocent only by default...they have no choice, they can be nothing but empty of intent.

Right. And therefore they are innocent, just as anyone else would be if they were empty of intent.

The innocence you value is meaningless. Do you also value the innocence of a flower or a couch more than an innocent pregnant woman?

In the sense that they shouldn't be needlessly destroyed? Yes. If the two were in competition I'd obviously destroy a flower or a couch to save a human being, but it's wrong to needlessly destroy anything.

All you are doing is using 'innocence' as a criteria to justify a life. For the unborn...it is empty, a vacuum. In women, it is a actual character attribute where she has a choice to BE innocent.

If I rob the bank, I'm guilty of robbing a bank, and no choice of mine can alter that. If I never robbed a bank, I'm innocent of robbing a bank, and no choice alters that (unless I choose to rob a bank later).

An unborn child, like a newborn, having done nothing, is guilty of nothing. They are innocent.

Why do you value that innocence of emptiness more than the innocence of women? What is a pregnant woman guilty of?

Nothing. Both parties are innocent. But we only deliberately seek to kill one, unnecessarily.

 

[Atreus21]

Re: A question of definition

As I pointed out before, slavery in England was not legal @ the time of the American Revolution. See Slavery in Britain - Wikipedia

"Slavery in Great Britain existed and was recognised from before the Roman occupation until the 12th century, when chattel slavery disappeared, at least for a time, after the Norman Conquest. Former slaves merged into the larger body of serfs in Britain and no longer were recognized separately in law or custom.[1][2]

"From the 17th century into the 19th century, transportation to the colonies as a criminal or an indentured servant served as punishment for both serious and petty crimes, or for simply being poor and viewed as an 'undesirable', facilitated by the Transportation Act of 1717.[3] During the same period, workhouses employed people whose poverty left them no other alternative than to work under forced labour conditions."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

As Colonial/US law largely derived from British law, that means that slavery was not legal in the colonies nor nascent US either, until the US states began to incorporate slavery into their lawmaking. (Even though there was some discussion of slavery in the US Constitution, & policy on slavery was set @ the national level.)

Thank you. Now. For the time in which it was legal in the US, was it morally right?

 

[southwest88]

Re: A question of definition

Thank you. Now. For the time in which it was legal in the US, was it morally right?

That's what I'm pointing out here - there's a very good possibility that slavery never was legal in the colonies, nor in the US (until states began to write it into their legislation). The usual disclaimer in the US history textbooks is that slavery was imported from England. But as I've noted, slavery in England was not legal after the Norman Conquest.

 

[weaver2]

At what point does a child become sentient and aware then? Somehow it all snaps into place at birth?

Did you know that there were books on this subject? Try reading one. When you have something intelligent to add to the discussion we'll be glad to respond.

 

[weaver2]

Just saying if you take an honest look at who is aborting their babies this is what you have. Dismiss me as a bigot if it's more convenient but I speak a truth I was fairly certain most of you don't have an appetite to face in a realistic fashion.

Perfectly ready to face your bigotry as soon as you decide which one you want to discuss.

 

[southwest88]

Of course the unborn are innocent, no less than a newborn is innocent. It's ridiculous to contest something this obvious.

Enforcing certain death on innocent party A isn't justified to spare innocent party B of a risk of harm or, extremely rarely, death.

All you have to do to justify killing someone is disparage them as an "empty vessel"? Could I do that to Jews? Or blacks? Or other people I might want to put to death if I were a horrible person?

unborn are innocent - No, not if you believe in Original Sin, or the similar doctrines of various faiths.

unborn are innocent, innocent party, justify killing - All of these phrases are - or can @ least be construed - as legal phrases. In the US, if you're going to argue legal cases on abortion, then you need to consider Roe v. Wade - which you apparently don't want to do; or @ least, not consider Roe as unassailable authority in the legal arena in the US. But if that's the case, then Why keep alluding to legal concepts & vocabulary here?

 

[Free Thinker]

Perfectly ready to face your bigotry as soon as you decide which one you want to discuss.

Ah the old "you're a bigot" cop out.

It's still around because it used to work. Not so much now days. People have grown weary of it.

 

[Atreus21]

Re: A question of definition

That's what I'm pointing out here - there's a very good possibility that slavery never was legal in the colonies, nor in the US (until states began to write it into their legislation). The usual disclaimer in the US history textbooks is that slavery was imported from England. But as I've noted, slavery in England was not legal after the Norman Conquest.

It was practiced and legally enforced throughout parts of the country until the conclusion of the civil war. During that time, when it was de facto legal, was it morally right?

 

[Scrabaholic]

I was under the impression that civil debate carried a presumption of sincerity.

What?

 

[Atreus21]

Did you know that there were books on this subject? Try reading one. When you have something intelligent to add to the discussion we'll be glad to respond.

If science suggested that fetuses have sentience and awareness inside the womb at some point, would you oppose abortion after that point?

 

[Scrabaholic]

I don't disagree, and even if I did it would be irrelevant. I'm not terribly concerned with what's legal. I'm concerned with what's right and wrong. Slavery was legal once. The internment of Japanese Americans was legal once.



It's not really a question of an authority. It's a question of values we all hold in common. Presumably most Americans, and hopefully most of the world, agree with premise 1 of this logic:

Premise 1: Deliberately killing innocent human beings is wrong.
Premise 2: An unborn child is an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Deliberately killing an unborn child is wrong.

So: were blacks actually sub-humans simply because the law said they were at one time?

Zefs are not human beings and they are incapable of innocence or guilt, so Premise 2 is wrong. Conclusion is a matter of opinion.

Please show the law that you think said that blacks were "sub-humans".

 

[weaver2]

If science suggested that fetuses have sentience and awareness inside the womb at some point, would you oppose abortion after that point?

Until you can give us the link to something you have read all you are doing is just inane questioning about hypothetical situations you have concocted so you can whip out your prepared answers.