One thing that has always puzzled me...... (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Liberals have no compassion for the innocent defenseless baby in the womb when it comes to abortion but when it comes to the death penalty and a person who has raped, mutilated and murdered they have all the compassion in the world........

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

 

[talloulou]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Liberals have no compassion for the innocent defenseless baby in the womb when it comes to abortion but when it comes to the death penalty and a person who has raped, mutilated and murdered they have all the compassion in the world........

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

I don't know I get confused when people oppose abortion out of respect for human life and then are all gung ho about killing people vs leaving them rot in a cell.

 

[TheLady]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Liberals have no compassion for the innocent defenseless baby in the womb when it comes to abortion but when it comes to the death penalty and a person who has raped, mutilated and murdered they have all the compassion in the world........

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

I have often wondered the same thing, I look forward to seeing some of the pro-abortion responses.

 

[TheLady]

I don't know I get confused when people oppose abortion out of respect for human life and then are all gung ho about killing people vs leaving them rot in a cell.

An unborn child who is aborted is an innocent victim, someone who gets the death penalty is a criminal who has caused one or many people to suffer. I actually think that the death penalty is to easy of a break, I would prefer that they rotted in a cell and forced to work in a labor camp the rest of there lives.

 

[cherokee]

I cant remember who has it in their sig but the words ring so very true.

Abortion should be legal, safe and totally unnecessary.

For a moment just think about the sentence.
What does last part mean to you?

 

[cherokee]

An unborn child who is aborted is an innocent victim, someone who gets the death penalty is a criminal who has caused one or many people to suffer. I actually think that the death penalty is to easy of a break, I would prefer that they rotted in a cell and forced to work in a labor camp the rest of there lives.

Do you still feel that way for a girl that was raped?

 

[TheLady]

Do you still feel that way for a girl that was raped?

absolutly, the cause of the pregnancy does not change the innocence of the child

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't know I get confused when people oppose abortion out of respect for human life and then are all gung ho about killing people vs leaving them rot in a cell.

I guess if I knew for sure they were going to rot in the cell I might reconsider but sadly there have been to many cases where some feel good liberal judge has seen fit to release these scum and they have gone out and raped and murdered again..........

You must see the difference though.....These people have committed crimes, a baby in the womb has committed no crime.........All it wants is a chance at life like we all got........

 

[The-Technocrat]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Liberals have no compassion for the innocent defenseless baby in the womb when it comes to abortion but when it comes to the death penalty and a person who has raped, mutilated and murdered they have all the compassion in the world........

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

No. I don't. The problem with your argument above is that it's based on some key logical faults. One, it's a strawman of this nebulus group you call "liberals" and their beliefs, it's based on a false analogy, and it's based on emotionally loaded terminology.

1. Liberals do not have "no compassion" for "innocent babies." The heart of the strawman is that you misunderstand the idea behind the reasons or the actual reasons. Secondly, you apply a generous dose of emotional terminology to obfuscate what they really feel. You are anthropmorphizing non-persons as if they were human persons; they aren't. That they are "innocent" is irrelevant to the ethics of this issue and they are not "babies" in the sense you wish for them to be.

If you mean collquial generalities, yes. The reason people are for abortion do not logically lead to "they hate babies" or "have no compassion for defensless infants" or something like that. That's nonsense.

It's also a false analogy to compare abortion to compassion they have for murder, rape, criminals etc. In all of the latter cases, we are dealing with the pain, suffering, and preferences of sapient organisms. That's very different. Totally different moral category.

A more accurate analysis is that these nebulous "liberals" have less compassion for unsentient biomass than they do for sentient/sapient beings. Then again, that analysis is more factual and less emotionally laden. It's a greater loss for a sapient being to be maligned, murdered, or injured in some way than it is to kill mindless biomass. Latter loses little or nothing of comparable value. It's not a subject of a life.

 

[TheLady]

The problem here is you are strawmanning these nebulus "liberals" by attatching and projecting your own feelings onto their position, thus distorting what they're saying. You do a great deal of damage to the position by attatching such emotionally loaded, but unsubstantiated terminology to their position.

It's poor reasoning to say "innocent defenseles baby in the womb." That's merely an appeal to emotions fallacy in reasoning you juxtapose with the implication that it's the same moral level as "rape" and "convict" ethics. IT's not. It's a false analogy too.

its actually a very simple and valid question.

 

[The-Technocrat]

Accident double post.

 

[The-Technocrat]

its actually a very simple and valid question.

Simple-minded is not to be confused with "simple" and valid. His question is based on false premises. It's a loaded, dishonest question in the first place. Do you know what a "strawman" and "false analogy" are? You are comparing apples and oranges.

It "sounds" valid, but it's not. Most rhetoric sounds good. To understand the issue, you have to go beyond petty political positions and party-lines. This is not really a "liberal" issue at all. It's an ethical one. I am not saying the Liberal justifications for abortion are actually valid. I don't think many are. I think they, liek conservatives, approach the problem incorrectly. I don't like the whole "pro-life, pro-choice" crap. It's just emotional slogans with no depth. It's not serious ethics.

 

[TheLady]

Simple-minded is not to be confused with "simple" and valid. His question is based on false premises. It's a loaded, dishonest question in the first place. Do you know what a "strawman" and "false analogy" are? You are comparing apples and oranges.

It "sounds" valid, but it's not. Most rhetoric sounds good. To understand the issue, you have to go beyond petty political positions and party-lines. This is not really a "liberal" issue at all. It's an ethical one. I am not saying the Liberal justifications for abortion are actually valid. I don't think many are. I think they, liek conservatives, approach the problem incorrectly. I don't like the whole "pro-life, pro-choice" crap. It's just emotional slogans with no depth. It's not serious ethics.

I am not debating political positions. I fully agree that its an ethical issue, I am wondering how some people can be all for abortions with no regards to the innocent child and have sympathy for criminals. It just doesn't make sense. I dont care about slogans and titles, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, it matters what you beleive in.

 

[The-Technocrat]

I am not debating political positions. I fully agree that its an ethical issue, I am wondering how some people can be all for abortions with no regards to the innocent child and have sympathy for criminals. It just doesn't make sense. I dont care about slogans and titles, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, it matters what you beleive in.

Well, the problem I have with the origional post is that Liberals do not "lack compassion for babies" but have it for criminals. The justifications are completely different. They aren't even the same ethical principles. My position on crime/punishment and abortion are based on Utilitarianism. I am a Utilitarian. Often, Utilitarian ethics is opposed to conventional morality.

I am not for "compassion for criminals." I don't see the point in giving someone extra harsh punishments if it doesn't give net benefits to everyone. I am for an effective justice system that doesn't punish people who did nothing wrong, because it doesn't do any good. If you can make a better system that avoids doing that, it's ok. Also, I think DP is a waste of money for the objective net benefit it gives compared to comparable punishments. I am thinking in terms of cost-benefit utility--I don't want to pay for something that's not cost-effective.

I do have compassion for babies. I even have some compassion for fetuses that are sentient, which is why I don't condone wanton causing of pain to them. I do not, however, consider them of equal moral value to adult sentient and sapient humans. The reasoning behind this is complex. That's why I would rather save 1 13 girl than 100 fertilized, tube grown embryos--even though each is a potential person or persons, just like the fetus.

 

[TheLady]

Well, the problem I have with the origional post is that Liberals do not "lack compassion for babies" but have it for criminals. The justifications are completely different. They aren't even the same ethical principles. My position on crime/punishment and abortion are based on Utilitarianism. I am a Utilitarian. Often, Utilitarian ethics is opposed to conventional morality.

I will not say Liberals because they are not the only ones for abortions and some of them are against it, so for the sake of this debate I will use the term pro-abortion. people who are pro-abortion do not lack compassion for all babies (I never said thay did) they just lack compassion for the ones in utero and to me that is hypocracy because I dont see how they are any less valuable or important.

I am not for "compassion for criminals." I don't see the point in giving someone extra harsh punishments if it doesn't give net benefits to everyone. I am for an effective justice system that doesn't punish people who did nothing wrong, because it doesn't do any good. If you can make a better system that avoids doing that, it's ok. Also, I think DP is a waste of money for the objective net benefit it gives compared to comparable punishments. I am thinking in terms of cost-benefit utility--I don't want to pay for something that's not cost-effective.

I believe that the punishment should be as harsh as the crime and I certaintly agree with you that we shouldn't punish people who did nothing wrong. I dont know much about the cost of DP so I will give you the benefit of the doubt untill I have a chance to futhure research it. although I will say one thing, how can it be more expensive to kill someone, than to house and feed them in prison for the rest of there life? I am very curious.

I do have compassion for babies. I even have some compassion for fetuses that are sentient, which is why I don't condone wanton causing of pain to them. I do not, however, consider them of equal moral value to adult sentient and sapient humans. The reasoning behind this is complex. That's why I would rather save 1 13 girl than 100 fertilized, tube grown embryos--even though each is a potential person or persons, just like the fetus.

I am glad that you have some compassion for babies both born and in utero, I just feel bad for the ones that you and many others don't have compassion for.

 

[The-Technocrat]

Well ok. This is leading somewhere. Do you know why I don't have compassion for them, as you put it? What the actual reasons are?

I will start by just asking you some questions. Don't take what I say to mean I disagree or agree with the statement.

1. You think human life is valuable, right? If so, naturally I must ask why? I think so too, but I don't know if it's the same reason you have. What makes human life valuable?

2. Then, if you say yes to the above, do you believe that all human life is equally as valuable and deserves equal treatment as such? If yes, why. If no, why. Is the fetus as valuable, ethically, as the mother?

 

[TheLady]

Well ok. This is leading somewhere. Do you know why I don't have compassion for them, as you put it? What the actual reasons are?

No, I have no idea. what are your actual reasons?

I will start by just asking you some questions. Don't take what I say to mean I disagree or agree with the statement.

1. You think human life is valuable, right? If so, naturally I must ask why? I think so too, but I don't know if it's the same reason you have. What makes human life valuable?

Yes. I beleive that god created human life and in my heart I know that we as humans have value, for me that is enough. why do you feel human life is valuable

2. Then, if you say yes to the above, do you believe that all human life is equally as valuable and deserves equal treatment as such? If yes, why. If no, why. Is the fetus as valuable, ethically, as the mother?

I beleive that someone who commits there life to crime and hurts other people is not as valuable as someone who does not and I think that such people deserve punishment. I beleive that the fetus is more valuable then the mother, if I were pregnant and had to die to save my childs life, I would do so in a second.

 

[The-Technocrat]

Yes. I beleive that god created human life and in my heart I know that we as humans have value, for me that is enough. why do you feel human life is valuable

Ok. Now, let's examine that. How can you ethically argue in a secular light? What if someone doesn't believe in God or the entire concept of God given rights/divinity of man?

What about humans have value?

I think humans have value because of their rational attributes--their characteristic traits, as well as minimal sentience. I cannot see something being valuable simply "because" someone says so.

I beleive that the fetus is more valuable then the mother, if I were pregnant and had to die to save my childs life, I would do so in a second.

Why is the fetus more valuable than the mother. Let's take that a step further. Is any given fetus equal to any gien adult human in moral value?

 

[TheLady]

Ok. Now, let's examine that. How can you ethically argue in a secular light? What if someone doesn't believe in God or the entire concept of God given rights/divinity of man?

I was just answering your question honestly, I agree that it wont help my point when debating with someone that does not beleive in god, but I was just answering your question honestly
What about humans have value?

I think humans have value because of their rational attributes--their characteristic traits, as well as minimal sentience. I cannot see something being valuable simply "because" someone says so.

I agree that a persons character gives them value along with there morals and beliefs, of course as I said before there are certain morals and beliefs that I think are wrong (murder/abortion, rape, things of that nature) and lesson a persons value.


Why is the fetus more valuable than the mother. Let's take that a step further. Is any given fetus equal to any gien adult human in moral value?

babies are innocent and innocense is of the highest value.

 

[The-Technocrat]

I would agree with you that there are extrinsic factors that can lower a person's value in comparison to someone else, but I am talking about intrinsic traits of the human organism. We all can agree that Humans are animals--a primate in particular. Animals have various characteristic traits. Humans have theirs that they happen to share in degree with some other animals. That is, most humans are sentient and to a greater extent, sapient.

Let's make a prima facie assumption:Say you have two humans adn they are both, on the face of it, innocent. Being A is a fetus. Being B is some joe smoe. Do you think that A is of equal moral value to B even though A doesn't have the rational attributes that make humans valuable intrinsically?

 

[TheLady]

Ok. Let's go beyond the concept of innocence though. Let's just compare two innocent people. Being A is a fetus. Being B is a 13 year old girl. Both are innocent.

Would you say both being A and B are deserving of equal moral consideration?

that depends, are you saying that all 13 year old girls innocent? (because that is just not true) or are you just saying that the one in the example is? if she is truly innocent then yes, they are both equal.

 

[The-Technocrat]

that depends, are you saying that all 13 year old girls innocent? (because that is just not true) or are you just saying that the one in the example is? if she is truly innocent then yes, they are both equal.

Yes. In this particular example, I am taking two random humans. One is a fetus, one is a 13 year old. I know they are not all innocent. Ok, now why do you say they are both equal in moral consideration? Because they are both human, yes?

 

[TheLady]

Yes. In this particular example, I am taking two random humans. One is a fetus, one is a 13 year old. I know they are not all innocent. Ok, now why do you say they are both equal in moral consideration? Because they are both human, yes?

yes, and because they are both innocent

 

[The-Technocrat]

So given that we assume the fetus and the adult human are both equal in moral consideration, we come to a problem. Let's say that we have the technology to grow a fetus outside of the mother at a hospital, and a fire breaks out. You only have time to save one person. You may either save a 20 year old nurse who has been knocked unconscious on the floor, or you can choose to save the fetus who can be removed in the removable containment unit.

Since they are both of equal moral value, you should find nothing wrong with someone who chooses to save the fetus over a 20 year old? You would think that either would be just as morally acceptable? I would disagree with that and think the person who didn't save the 20 year old to be wrong.

I cannot possibly see them as being equal, as that premise leads to too many unethical conclusions IMO, in addition to the fact that they are very different beings.

 

[TheLady]

So given that we assume the fetus and the adult human are both equal in moral consideration, we come to a problem. Let's say that we have the technology to grow a fetus outside of the mother at a hospital, and a fire breaks out. You only have time to save one person. You may either save a 20 year old nurse who has been knocked unconscious on the floor, or you can choose to save the fetus who can be removed in the removable containment unit.

I would save the fetus

Since they are both of equal moral value, you should find nothing wrong with someone who chooses to save the fetus over a 20 year old? You would think that either would be just as morally acceptable? I would disagree with that and think the person who didn't save the 20 year old to be wrong.

you are certaintly entitled to your opinion.

I cannot possibly see them as being equal, as that premise leads to too many unethical conclusions IMO, in addition to the fact that they are very different beings.

I do not see them as being equal either.
would you care to elaborate on these unethical conclusions?