Removing pro-birth people from the abortion debate

[Ganondagan]

So then you do see a moral connection in violating peoples' rights, and that it's not just a "legal aspect"...thank you. Please continue to keep this in mind.

What exactly is it you think you proved? I think you, with your sense of right and wrong being determined by legal status, would have accepted slavery as being normal and acceptable because it was legal. I, believing in objective morality, would not have.

 

[Lursa]

What exactly is it you think you proved? I think you, with your sense of right and wrong being determined by legal status,

This is a lie, so what is it you are trying to prove? Where is your argument? Why are you making this about me?

would have accepted slavery as being normal and acceptable because it was legal. I, believing in objective morality, would not have.

See? You realized you were wrong. Now that you've acknowledged there is a connection between rights and morality, beyond the legal<<<what "I proved" and you confirm...please keep it in mind in your arguments...whatever they are.

 

[Ganondagan]

This is a lie, so what is it you are trying to prove? Where is your argument? Why are you making this about me?



See? You realized you were wrong. Now that you've acknowledged there is a connection between rights and morality, beyond the legal<<<what "I proved" and you confirm...please keep it in mind in your arguments...whatever they are.

Oh, I have never claimed there is not occasionally a connection between rights and morality, but the legal system does not create those rights. Laws can only protect or deny protection of rights. Our rights are inherent and inalienable, granted us by our creator. The connection between legality and morality is merely tangential. They are very different things.

 

[Lursa]

Oh, I have never claimed there is not occasionally a connection between rights and morality, but the legal system does not create those rights. Laws can only protect or deny protection of rights. Our rights are inherent and inalienable, granted us by our creator. The connection between legality and morality is merely tangential. They are very different things.

So you're changing your story? Figures.

Morality exists outside of legality and the arguments I've made...at least 2 of them have nothing to do with rights...have nothing to do with any "creator" either.

Simply put...it is morally wrong to demand, without her consent, that a woman suffer and risk her health, her self-determination, and even life to continue a pregnancy. No one can predict her death, nor necessarily prevent it. The role of anyone or any organization that would take away a woman's consent to her own life and moral agency is the same as slave owner...who did the exact same things to their slaves. If you disagree, explain?

There's no black and white answer here (as much as most anti-abortites crave it), and despite what you "believe," morality is not objective. Morality often requires balance and a choice between the least amount of harm done. The least amount of pain, suffering, harm...including to others in the woman's life...leaves the decision up to the woman, who's moral agency grants her consent to her own life, and respect of her as an individual to know her own needs and circumstances and what is best for her, her family, her responsibilities, and possibly... a future child.

To reduce the perspective to the base*, reductive goal held by anti-abortites of "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat" dehumanizes both. "Quality of life over quantity" is the greater moral good...reducing them to numbers or physiological functions is again, dehumanizing. Why should the life of the unborn supersede that of the woman's and all "who she is and matters to others?"

*Base: lacking or indicating the lack of higher qualities of mind or spirit

 

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, I have never claimed there is not occasionally a connection between rights and morality, but the legal system does not create those rights. Laws can only protect or deny protection of rights. Our rights are inherent and inalienable, granted us by our creator. The connection between legality and morality is merely tangential. They are very different things.

Where do rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion appear in the Bible? As far as I know, Amos, Ezekiel, or Jesus were not wondering around discussing the virtues of not being forced to house a soldier or having a jury of one's peers.

 

[weaver2]

To, me, the serious abortion debate is about, at what point, a human life begins, using biology as the criteria.
So, now that that's been removed from the discussion, we can have a discussion about when human life actually begins, and at what point in the pregnancy it deserves protection.

The initiation of a new life has already been established. Nobody disputes that. The dispute is about trying to establish a fetus as a legal person. That's a very different argument than with does life begin.
As far as the point at which a pregnancy deserve protection, Roe answered that question, intelligently, legally, historically, practically and biologically. You were happy when when the Supreme Court threw out Roe. Now you don't have any guidelines because your SC was too stupid and sexist and ideological to give you anything intelligent so now you have to ask the same questions all over again.

 

[Josie]

The initiation of a new life has already been established. Nobody disputes that.

Well, that's not true. People dispute that in every single debate about abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

Well, that's not true. People dispute that in every single debate about abortion.

Who's disputing it? What's not in dispute is that the unborn is not a legal person and "life" is irrelevant to the legality of the issue.

 

[Ganondagan]

So you're changing your story? Figures.

Morality exists outside of legality and the arguments I've made...at least 2 of them have nothing to do with rights...have nothing to do with any "creator" either.

Simply put...it is morally wrong to demand, without her consent, that a woman suffer and risk her health, her self-determination, and even life to continue a pregnancy. No one can predict her death, nor necessarily prevent it. The role of anyone or any organization that would take away a woman's consent to her own life and moral agency is the same as slave owner...who did the exact same things to their slaves. If you disagree, explain?

There's no black and white answer here (as much as most anti-abortites crave it), and despite what you "believe," morality is not objective. Morality often requires balance and a choice between the least amount of harm done. The least amount of pain, suffering, harm...including to others in the woman's life...leaves the decision up to the woman, who's moral agency grants her consent to her own life, and respect of her as an individual to know her own needs and circumstances and what is best for her, her family, her responsibilities, and possibly... a future child.

To reduce the perspective to the base*, reductive goal held by anti-abortites of "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat" dehumanizes both. "Quality of life over quantity" is the greater moral good...reducing them to numbers or physiological functions is again, dehumanizing. Why should the life of the unborn supersede that of the woman's and all "who she is and matters to others?"

*Base: lacking or indicating the lack of higher qualities of mind or spirit

"despite what you "believe," morality is not objective"

Oh, but it is, that's exactly what it is. Anything else is merely a collection of self-serving guide lists that can be changed to meet the circumstances.

 

[weaver2]

Well, that's not true. People dispute that in every single debate about abortion.

Josie, everybody agrees, pro-life, pro-choice, Christians, Hindus, atheists, liberals, conservatives, the confused and the clearheaded all agree, a new life, be it zebra, aardvark or human, begins with conception.

 

[Ganondagan]

The initiation of a new life has already been established. Nobody disputes that. The dispute is about trying to establish a fetus as a legal person. That's a very different argument than with does life begin.
As far as the point at which a pregnancy deserve protection, Roe answered that question, intelligently, legally, historically, practically and biologically. You were happy when when the Supreme Court threw out Roe. Now you don't have any guidelines because your SC was too stupid and sexist and ideological to give you anything intelligent so now you have to ask the same questions all over again.

The killing of innocent human life is objectively immoral - unless the life of mom or baby is at risk - no matter what the courts decide.

 

[Josie]

Josie, everybody agrees, pro-life, pro-choice, Christians, Hindus, atheists, liberals, conservatives, the confused and the clearheaded all agree, a new life, be it zebra, aardvark or human, begins with conception.

We literally have thousands of posts here that say otherwise, weaver.

Here's just one poll on the topic:

J

Thread 'When does human life begin?'

Jul 29, 2019

For purposes of this thread, equate sentience with human life. If that is prior to birth, sobeit.

• Jay59
• Replies: 143
• Forum: Polls

 

[Gordy327]

"despite what you "believe," morality is not objective"

Oh, but it is, that's exactly what it is. Anything else is merely a collection of self-serving guide lists that can be changed to meet the circumstances.

If it can be changed, then it's subjective. That and moral standards can vary considerably between various cultures and societies.

 

[Gordy327]

The killing of innocent human life is objectively immoral - unless the life of mom or baby is at risk - no matter what the courts decide.

Says who? By what authority says abortionis immoral? And "Innocent" of what exactly? What about the pregnant woman? Is she not "innocent" too?

 

[Gordy327]

We literally have thousands of posts here that say otherwise, weaver.

Here's just one poll on the topic:

J

Thread 'When does human life begin?'

Jul 29, 2019

For purposes of this thread, equate sentience with human life. If that is prior to birth, sobeit.

• Jay59
• Replies: 143
• Forum: Polls

And not one post explaining how "human life," which is a scientific classification, is relevant or applicable to the legality of abortion.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Why does it matter when a "human life" begins? That's settled science: an individual life with Homo sapiens DNA begins at fertilization/implantation.

Really?

Take a zygote or an embryo less than 20 months out if its host and see how long it survives on its own. Even with extraordinary medical assistance. The answer would be minutes.

Science doesnt determine or care who reproduces or who kills who. It doesnt recognize value, rights, laws, etc. It examines and categorizes.

And part of what science would consider is viability.

What are your criteria that show some important/significant distinctions for the unborn's physical or other status during the unborn development cycle?

That it was incapable of life without a host. Viruses aren’t considered living things.

• No independent metabolism: Viruses cannot generate their own energy or metabolize nutrients.
  
  
• No independent reproduction: They must invade a host cell and hijack its machinery to make more viruses.
  
  
• Lack of growth: Viruses don't grow or develop in the same way living organisms do.
  
  
• No homeostasis: They cannot maintain a stable internal environment.
  
  
• Inert outside a host: A virus particle is a passive, inert structure until it enters a living cell.
  
  

Neither can a zygote or an early embryo. Remove from the host, it is not living.

 

[Ganondagan]

Says who? By what authority says abortionis immoral? And "Innocent" of what exactly? What about the pregnant woman? Is she not "innocent" too?

Says me.

 

[Gordy327]

Says me.

Well that means nothing and certainly holds no authority over me or anyone else.

 

[Ganondagan]

Well that means nothing and certainly holds no authority over me or anyone else.

Holding authority over you and others has never been me goal. Educating you, or at least encouraging you to consider alternative ideas, is my goal.

 

[Gordy327]

Holding authority over you and others has never been me goal. Educating you, or at least encouraging you to consider alternative ideas, is my goal.

Educate about what? What alternative ideas? Be specific!

 

[Ganondagan]

Educate about what? What alternative ideas? Be specific!

Subjective morality is no morality at all. If morality was subjective, on what basis could you condemn Hitler's Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Pol Pot's Cambodia?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Medical decisions made by women are not the business of the GQP.

They need to be told to stay out of it and shut their holes.

 

[Daisy]

Medical decisions made by women are not the business of the GQP.

They need to be told to stay out of it and shut their holes.

Never said it was...

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Never said it was...

I am glad to hear that.

Red states are trying to return women and children to chattel status.

This just needs to be stopped.

GQP members need to be told their religious beliefs have no place in government affairs.

 

[Ganondagan]

I am glad to hear that.

Red states are trying to return women and children to chattel status.

This just needs to be stopped.

GQP members need to be told their religious beliefs have no place in government affairs.

Religious beliefs do have a place in government and public affairs.

John Adams on Religion and the Constitution | Online Library of Liberty

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by...

oll.libertyfund.org

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adams, and many others, believed that in a society riddled with vices, the various mechanisms created by the Constitution would not be able to function properly, with the result that the democratic republican order would be eventually supplanted by despotism.It is worth noting, however, that while Adams occasionally made positive references to Christianity, he was not a strong advocate of any particular religion (at least in his public statements) or even a specific moral code, except insofar as it condemned a (rather short) list of obnoxious vices. Indeed, Adams was firmly against the official establishment of any religion and was a champion of religious freedom. As Deists, Adams and his like-minded peers believed that any moral system had to be grounded in a belief in God, but the specific aspects of that belief, or how they manifested themselves in a particular religion, were of little if any interest to them.