- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,666
- Reaction score
- 1,390
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
At what point does a child become sentient and aware then? Somehow it all snaps into place at birth?
Abortions are not possible on sentient, aware children.
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?
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.
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.
And you also show that the woman is innocent (unless she is a criminal).
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.
"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.
Nope...it's also a reaction. Sorry you dont get the simple black and white answer you want.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?
So if you're incapable of action or unconscious, you can't be victimized, correct?
That's right, she is.
Because averting abortion doesn't necessarily kill an innocent human being. Abortion does.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
At what point does a child become sentient and aware then? Somehow it all snaps into place at birth?
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.
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
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.
You can be victimized. Has nothing to do with being innocent tho...unless every single person, even criminals, is 'innocent' while asleep? :roll:
Please specify what she is guilty of?
Otherwise, I call desperate BS on your part.
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?
Slavery was legal once. Does that mean it was morally right? That's it.
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?
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?
At what point does a child become sentient and aware then? Somehow it all snaps into place at birth?
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.
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?
Perfectly ready to face your bigotry as soon as you decide which one you want to discuss.
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.
I was under the impression that civil debate carried a presumption of sincerity.
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.
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?
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.If science suggested that fetuses have sentience and awareness inside the womb at some point, would you oppose abortion after that point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?