Roe vs Wade anniversary

[Moonbeam]

Given the grave consequences of aborting an organism that may be a human, shouldn't the onus be on pro-choicers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life starts after conception?

No, because we are not talking about life but right to life legally. An absolute right to human life is an absurdity. A whale has more consciousness than a fetus but people slaughtered them by the millions and millions. And every time you flush the toilet you flush billions of germy lives. Please don't stop flushing.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Given the grave consequences of aborting an organism that may be a human, shouldn't the onus be on pro-choicers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life starts after conception?

OK, I suppose I should've worded that slightly differently. Rather than talk about when life begins, we can discuss when the concept of personhood, and the rights that conveys, begins. According to our legal system, the rights of personhood do not begin until someone is born (C-section births count). Is there a rational reason to expand the rights of personhood to embryos and fetuses, and does it apply across the board; if a fetus has a right to life, does it also count as a dependent for tax purposes, for example?

 

[Paratus]

You can try to justify it all you want, but society is allowing someone to kill another person who can not speak up for them self.

Whos side are you on?

This is no different than slavery, native americans, mormons, Japanese-Americans,,,, and a long list of other crimes against humanity.

Are you on the side of the victim, or are you on the side of the killer?

Are you on the side of the slave, or the slave owner?

Are the on the side of the native american, or on the side of the government?

When Japanese-Americans were being rounded up and set to camps, where would you have stood?

So Texas, if I remember correctly you have several children. How many children did you have to kill to have your kids?

Because, 50% of those fertilized eggs you think are children fail to reach maturity are spontaneously aborted. Or according to you, killed.

So unless you've only had unprotected sex the same number of times you have children, you've likely killed several children.

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[Paratus]

What matters is when human life begins, since this is the moment society sanctifies an organism's existence. Whether a mother can claim her zygote as a dependent on her tax returns is irrelevant to the abortion debate.

If a zygote is a human life, then abortion is murder. Based on what society knows, we may or may not be murdering humans through abortion. Since the definition of human life is arbitrary, the question cannot be answered.

The real crux of the issue is what risk society is willing to tolerate for the freedom to fornicate. Is a 0.001% chance of murder worth it in exchange for saving a woman the pain of an unwanted birth?

Is legalizing "murder" ever okay? How about for self defense? Or maybe abortion? Or maybe because you don't like Jewish people?

The truth is that human sensitivities dictate what is moral. Killing 100,000 Japanese civilians overnight during the fire-bombing of Tokyo in 1945 was A-OK. Killing one black kid while your head is being slammed into the concrete is verboten. Killing a microscopic organism that could one day be a "human" is legal. Killing a third trimester fetus and saving its dismembered corpse in jars is verboten.

Why the discrepancies? Human sensitivities are based on emotion, not logic. Morality is (functionally) arbitrary. Some people green-light abortion because they don't wretch at the thought and they can fornicate with less risk. Others abhor abortion because they don't value promiscuity and the thought of frivolously culling life heightens their insecurity.

I asked this in the other thread but with the fact that approximately 50% of zygotes are spontaneously aborted killing them the process of procreation is inherently immoral and unethical.

There is no difference between procreation and walking into an orphanage with a half loaded revolver and adopting the first child who survives Russian Roulette.

How do you reconcile these views?

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[Vic]

Murder is premeditated killing. If someone is procreating with the implicit intent to suffer a miscarriage, then that is murder.

Read the other thread for my views on why procreation isn't immoral.

You don't eat eggs then?

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[Vic]

I eat unfertilized chicken eggs occasionally. I've never eaten balut nor do I have the desire to, but I don't find the act immoral. Being an omnivore is fine, but the meat packing industry nudges me towards veganism...

I fail to see how this is relevant, though?

Are you a parent?

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[Paratus]

Murder is premeditated killing. If someone is procreating with the implicit intent to suffer a miscarriage, then that is murder.

Read the other thread for my views on why procreation isn't immoral.

I read it. It's the ends justify the means.
But I agree it's not murder it's manslaughter or reckless endangerment

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[Vic]

Does it make a difference?

Nothing else does in this life.

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[shira]

So then when can I look forward to liberals opposing poor single women having children they cannot feed

What, exactly, does "opposing" poor single women having children they cannot feed" entail? Mandatory abortions for pregnant women on welfare?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So should we also make it so that liberals have to pay a "bastard child tax"? Why should social conservatives be forced to pay for the luxury of liberals rejection of centuries of common sense?

Except it isn't common sense. It's common nonsense. Just because people have believed in religious mysticism for centures does not make it sensical.

What I am proposing would make liberals pay for the practical economic costs of their ideology on society.

The costs of birth control and abortion themselves are not really costs to the government because they result in a net cost savings in terms of welfare costs, education costs, population-based costs, and criminal justice costs.

 

[DominionSeraph]

None of these arguments resonate with pro-choice people because we don't view a fetus as indistinguishable from a born human. The answer to literally every example you gave is "non-equivalence, a fetus is not the same as a born human." Until you're able to show us why we should consider an embryo or fetus as human life from the point of conception as opposed to some other stage in the development process, your arguments aren't going to sway us because they rely on a fundamental point (life begins at conception) that we disagree with.

This. What happens to a born human can happen to me. The same is not true for the unborn. None of our mothers can kill us by shoving a vacuum cleaner up their vaginas.
"But we're the same"? How so when an infant doesn't pass the mirror test until 15 to 24 months after birth? The cow that ended up on your dinner plate is likely closer to you in mental assay than a fetus. You are on firmer ground to say that the cattle rancher has assumed total responsibility for his cattle and has no right to kill them than you are to say the same thing about a woman and her fetus. "The rancher went out and bought that head of cattle. What did he expect to happen; to not get a head of cattle?" "The rancher put a bull and a heifer together. He can't just run away from the consequences of his actions!"

 

[nehalem256]

Except it isn't common sense. It's common nonsense. Just because people have believed in religious mysticism for centures does not make it sensical.

Funny that a new study by Harvard backs up this "religious mysticism"

What’s the most important factor blocking social mobility? Single parents, suggests a new study.

...
1) Family structure. Of all the factors most predictive of economic mobility in America, one factor clearly stands out in their study: family structure. By their reckoning, when it comes to mobility, “the strongest and most robust predictor is the fraction of children with single parents.” They find that children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are significantly less likely to experience absolute and relative mobility. Moreover, “[c]hildren of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.” In other words, as the figure below indicates, it looks like a married village is more likely to raise the economic prospects of a poor child.

What makes this finding particularly significant is that this is the first major study showing that rates of single parenthood at the community level are linked to children’s economic opportunities over the course of their lives. A lot of research—including new research from the Brookings Institution—has shown us that kids are more likely to climb the income ladder when they are raised by two, married parents. But this is the first study to show that lower-income kids from both single- and married-parent families are more likely to succeed if they hail from a community with lots of two-parent families.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...roken_families.html?google_editors_picks=true

The costs of birth control and abortion themselves are not really costs to the government because they result in a net cost savings in terms of welfare costs, education costs, population-based costs, and criminal justice costs.

These are all verifiable higher for bastard children.

 

[nehalem256]

I asked this in the other thread but with the fact that approximately 50% of zygotes are spontaneously aborted killing them the process of procreation is inherently immoral and unethical.

There is no difference between procreation and walking into an orphanage with a half loaded revolver and adopting the first child who survives Russian Roulette.

How do you reconcile these views?

How does the fact that a certain percentage of zygotes will die of NATURAL CAUSES make procreation inherently immoral and unethical.

By your logic since 100% of people will eventually die, mostly of NATURAL CAUSES, all procreation is inherently immoral and unethical anyway.

 

[Paratus]

How does the fact that a certain percentage of zygotes will die of NATURAL CAUSES make procreation inherently immoral and unethical.

By your logic since 100% of people will eventually die, mostly of NATURAL CAUSES, all procreation is inherently immoral and unethical anyway.

If you want a child, by this logic, you must create a child and put it through a process that kills 50% of them. Doesn't matter if they are natural causes or not.

By your logic we are either responsible for sex or we aren't. If we are responsible and Zygotes are children, we are responsible for their deaths.

I think this is insane, but then again I'm not a misognyistic fundy conservative who wants to pretend that taking a pill that aborts a zygote is child murder but having it happen naturally and no children were harmed.

 

[Mursilis]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/13-young-secular-people-who-also-believe-abortion-is-wrong

I just found it interesting that someone, somewhere finally decided to bring attention to the fact that the pro-life movement isn't all religious people.

 

[nehalem256]

If you want a child, by this logic, you must create a child and put it through a process that kills 50% of them. Doesn't matter if they are natural causes or not.

And by your logic if you create a child you are putting it through a process that is 100% guaranteed to kill it.

 

[Mursilis]

An absolute right to human life is an absurdity.

I suppose that depends on how you define 'absolute'. I believe (at least I think I do) in an absolute right to human life, but that doesn't mean I consider it immoral to use deadly force to protect my own life, or that of another innocent party. For example, in the Colorado theater shooting situation, the (innocent) audience members' right to life trumps that of the shooter, who set that situation into motion.

 

[Paratus]

And by your logic if you create a child you are putting it through a process that is 100% guaranteed to kill it.

Well yes, and that's the justification that many people use to not have kids. None of us got to decide to be born or not but I don't personally subscribe to that logic.

But in rational pro-choice land, a zygote that fails to implant is just a month where you didn't get pregnant not a dead child.

It's obvious you are not a parent, not likely to become one.
Actually it's obvious there's not a single woman in your life outside of possibly your mother.

 

[zinfamous]

It is terrible to let blacks run free. It is terrible for a white man to pick his own crops when blacks are available. A rational compromise is to adopt slavery. Its the law of the land,,, or rather slavery was the law of the land.

Just because something was/is legal, and upheld by the supreme court, does not make it right.

and rationale prevailed. Those horrible practices were abolished, and the constitution amended, because it was right and it was rational.

Abortion was made legal, and has been repeatedly protected by the supreme court, because it is rational, and it is right.