Social Conservatives: Just a few questions

[WhipperSnapper]

The real issue is not really abortion, but whether or not you should believe in the existence of a god. The overwhelming majority of opponents of legal abortion oppose it for religious mysticism reasons. Thus, it is a waste of time to try to debate their pathetic secular arguments. Go to the source--debate the real issue. At least make them acknowledge that their belief is based on religious faith. And if your belief is based on religious faith, then please just come out and say so rather than put forth pathetic arguments and twisting yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to avoid revealing the real source of your belief.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: slyedog
just pull your head out of the sand. its all there for you to see.

Great answer. I especially like the detailed examples you've provided.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

limiting women to one 'free' abortion before they have some serious questions to answer if they want another one

Well, it's good to know that there will be serious questions asked. And I assume there will be serious answers, such as, "Go take a flying leap. It's none of your business how I got pregnant."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The real issue is not really abortion, but whether or not you should believe in the existence of a god. The overwhelming majority of opponents of legal abortion oppose it for religious mysticism reasons. Thus, it is a waste of time to try to debate their pathetic secular arguments. Go to the source--debate the real issue. At least make them acknowledge that their belief is based on religious faith. And if your belief is based on religious faith, then please just come out and say so rather than put forth pathetic arguments and twisting yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to avoid revealing the real source of your belief.

Yes, the classic liberal rebuttal in lieu of a real argument. "The only reason you disagree with me is because of religion." :roll: I daresay that I can argue you into a corner on this issue without even mentioning religion, so kindly take your condescension elsewhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I did not claim the fetus was a part of the woman's body, only that it is dependent on it and can therefore have no preemptive rights over whether the mother has to continue that dependency. Legally, you do not have to jump in a lake to save a drowning person so there is also no absolute right to life.

If a mother stops feeding her child immediately after it's born, then it's murder, correct? So where is the division? The child will be dependent on the mother for years after birth, so why the distinction?

Why would it be murder if a mother stopped feading her baby? A baby is not dependent on its mother. Anybody can take care of it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why would it be murder if a mother stopped feading her baby? A baby is not dependent on its mother. Anybody can take care of it.

Any woman could carry the fetus as well.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CycloWizardYes, the classic liberal rebuttal in lieu of a real argument. "The only reason you disagree with me is because of religion." :roll: I daresay that I can argue you into a corner on this issue without even mentioning religion, so kindly take your condescension elsewhere.

I have debated and argued this issue for years and when I debate it, it almost always boils down to the opponent of abortion's having religious faith. I have encountered few atheists that oppose legal abortion. They do exist, but they are rare. When I have probed deeper, I have discovered that they did have faith in religious mythology in the past and retain altruistic notions of duty and responsibility in their moral code.

OK, let's get into it. It's been a couple years since I debated this. What is your position on abortion for a two-day old embryo which doesn't even have a brain yet? Do you believe that such an entity has individual rights? Why do you say that when fully grown animals are far more sentient and developed? At what stage of development should abortion become illegal in your view? Have you observed any evidence that a newborn infant possesses the immediate ability to engage in abstract, conceptual thought and that it possesses a real personaltiy inside?

My argument in favor of legal abortion is that the abstract concept of individual rights does not apply to growths inside of people and that no person exists inside of a fetus. You cannot murder a person who does not exist in the present; the fetus is tabula rasa and devoid of any human personality. For the purposes of objective, non-ambiguous law, the government should recognize individual rights at the time of birth even though a newborn infant is not actually capable of possessing them.

What is your non-religious argument? Altruistic duty to protoplasm? Altruistic duty to a fetus that is less sentient than many grown animals? Could you come up with an argument based on rational selfishness as a moral code?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CycloWizardYes, the classic liberal rebuttal in lieu of a real argument. "The only reason you disagree with me is because of religion." :roll: I daresay that I can argue you into a corner on this issue without even mentioning religion, so kindly take your condescension elsewhere.

I have debated and argued this issue for years and when I debate it, it almost always boils down to the opponent of abortion's having religious faith. I have encountered few atheists that oppose legal abortion. They do exist, but they are rare. When I have probed deeper, I have discovered that they did have faith in religious mythology in the past and retain altruistic notions of duty and responsibility in their moral code.

OK, let's get into it. It's been a couple years since I debated this. What is your position on abortion for a two-day old embryo which doesn't even have a brain yet? Do you believe that such an entity has individual rights? Why do you say that when fully grown animals are far more sentient and developed? At what stage of development should abortion become illegal in your view? Have you observed any evidence that a newborn infant possesses the immediate ability to engage in abstract, conceptual thought and that it possesses a real personaltiy inside?

My argument in favor of legal abortion is that the abstract concept of individual rights does not apply to growths inside of people and that no person exists inside of a fetus. You cannot murder a person who does not exist in the present; the fetus is tabula rasa and devoid of any human personality. For the purposes of objective, non-ambiguous law, the government should recognize individual rights at the time of birth even though a newborn infant is not actually capable of possessing them.

What is your non-religious argument? Altruistic duty to protoplasm? Altruistic duty to a fetus that is less sentient than many grown animals? Could you come up with an argument based on rational selfishness as a moral code?

So where do you draw the line on when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a baby?

Somehow I dont think you are going to answer this question.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison
So where do you draw the line on when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a baby?

When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison
So where do you draw the line on when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a baby?

When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

So about sometime in the 2nd trimester then, as that is when premature babies can currently be cared for?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison
So where do you draw the line on when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a baby?

When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

So about sometime in the 2nd trimester then, as that is when premature babies can currently be cared for?

If that's the case then yes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison
So where do you draw the line on when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a baby?

When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

So about sometime in the 2nd trimester then, as that is when premature babies can currently be cared for?

If that's the case then yes.

Be prepared for this time to get ever closer to the first triemester as medical technologly advances.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I have debated and argued this issue for years and when I debate it, it almost always boils down to the opponent of abortion's having religious faith. I have encountered few atheists that oppose legal abortion. They do exist, but they are rare. When I have probed deeper, I have discovered that they did have faith in religious mythology in the past and retain altruistic notions of duty and responsibility in their moral code.

OK, let's get into it. It's been a couple years since I debated this. What is your position on abortion for a two-day old embryo which doesn't even have a brain yet? Do you believe that such an entity has individual rights? Why do you say that when fully grown animals are far more sentient and developed? At what stage of development should abortion become illegal in your view? Have you observed any evidence that a newborn infant possesses the immediate ability to engage in abstract, conceptual thought and that it possesses a real personaltiy inside?

My argument in favor of legal abortion is that the abstract concept of individual rights does not apply to growths inside of people and that no person exists inside of a fetus. You cannot murder a person who does not exist in the present; the fetus is tabula rasa and devoid of any human personality. For the purposes of objective, non-ambiguous law, the government should recognize individual rights at the time of birth even though a newborn infant is not actually capable of possessing them.

What is your non-religious argument? Altruistic duty to protoplasm? Altruistic duty to a fetus that is less sentient than many grown animals? Could you come up with an argument based on rational selfishness as a moral code?

Do a search. I'm pretty sure I've debated this ad nauseum in every abortion thread in the past six months. If that's not satisfactory, I'll get to it later tonight.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

What is the basis for this position? Why is this a place for granting rights? I've already established why it is not a logically tenable position, since reliance on the mother does not end even after birth, nor can a concrete basis for viability be established.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

What is the basis for this position? Why is this a place for granting rights? I've already established why it is not a logically tenable position, since reliance on the mother does not end even after birth, nor can a concrete basis for viability be established.

And your point was already defeated as ANY person could care for a child after birth. Happens all the time.

 

[Stunt]

Since i started this thread...i thought i'd make a token post.
I didnt think it would turn into a full out abortion discussion...ahwell

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Since i started this thread...i thought i'd make a token post.
I didnt think it would turn into a full out abortion discussion...ahwell

That's what seems to happen anytime CycloWizard enters the discussion. It might not be true, it just seems like it!

 

[Stunt]

CW feels strongly about the subject and has every right to voice it.
just like Rip and Abstinance, Conjur and anti-bush admin, Dissipate and anarcho-capitalism, etc.

I see the benifits of both positions, as i do feel there are people out there that abuse the system and do use it as a form of birthcontrol, where some people have 2 or more abortions over their life. Which is just wrong.

I think that there are system reforms that can help lower the abortion rate without taking the right away from women, which i think is important. Having control over your body is important. I know CW made excellent points about areas where people do not have control over their body, but i believe all of those laws should be cancelled. Reforms i see is better sex education, more birthcontrol (volumes and cheaper), better adoption practices. etc.

I don't think we have to resort to banning it, as this will cause people to turn to unproffessional methods (illegal drugs, doctors, etc). Women who don't want a kid won't have the kid, there's a lot of fiscal and emotional burden when having a kid, this should not be forced on a person because of a condom breaking or whatever. I will admit that i've had it happen, girl had to use morning after pill.

Mistakes happen, people shouldnt have to take their livelyhood away because of a small mishap of a $1 product.

I'm 100% against abortion, and limiting it as much as possible. I think this can be done without restricting rights or allowing state control of individual's bodys.
That's my take, don't expect me to get too involved in this mudslinging match

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why would it be murder if a mother stopped feading her baby? A baby is not dependent on its mother. Anybody can take care of it.

Any woman could carry the fetus as well.

Society will take care of an unwanted baby but not an unwanted fetus. Your counterpoint is does not have weight.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And your point was already defeated as ANY person could care for a child after birth. Happens all the time.

Define viability in a concrete way.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Society will take care of an unwanted baby but not an unwanted fetus. Your counterpoint is does not have weight.

Does society cut off life support when a 'fetus' is born prematurely? Don't think so, so it looks like society will care for the fetus. You're fabricating a distinction to suit your cause, something you love to call others out on. What is different between a fetus that is inside the mother and outside, other than spatially? Is it the umbilocal cord?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

What is the basis for this position? Why is this a place for granting rights? I've already established why it is not a logically tenable position, since reliance on the mother does not end even after birth, nor can a concrete basis for viability be established.

And your point was already defeated as ANY person could care for a child after birth. Happens all the time.

Which means anything in the 3rd trimester is a baby and not a fetus. Medical technology is pushing this into the 2nd trimester.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what seems to happen anytime CycloWizard enters the discussion. It might not be true, it just seems like it!

It's a discussion on social conservatism. Not sure how this is out of place, as this and homosexual marriage (the other point I mentioned) are the two hotbed issues in this area today. I stated a clear answer to the OP's questions and then people started questioning that response, so I answered.

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think that there are system reforms that can help lower the abortion rate without taking the right away from women, which i think is important. Having control over your body is important. I know CW made excellent points about areas where people do not have control over their body, but i believe all of those laws should be cancelled. Reforms i see is better sex education, more birthcontrol (volumes and cheaper), better adoption practices. etc.

I don't think we have to resort to banning it, as this will cause people to turn to unproffessional methods (illegal drugs, doctors, etc). Women who don't want a kid won't have the kid, there's a lot of fiscal and emotional burden when having a kid, this should not be forced on a person because of a condom breaking or whatever. I will admit that i've had it happen, girl had to use morning after pill.

Mistakes happen, people shouldnt have to take their livelyhood away because of a small mishap of a $1 product.

I'm 100% against abortion, and limiting it as much as possible. I think this can be done without restricting rights or allowing state control of individual's bodys.
That's my take, don't expect me to get too involved in this mudslinging match

I agree in that I'm 100% against abortion, but for completely different reasons (as you predicted ). Why do you want abortion to end? I'm guessing because you have acknowledged the humanity of the target of the procedure, just as the USSC, abortion apologists, ethicists, and biologists have. You realize that there is no question regarding whether or not abortion is the deliberate termination of human life and, therefore, is ethically deplorable. This is the true issue at hand, and is why legislation is the appropriate way to deal with the issue. Abortion apologists attempt to weave arguments to diverge from these basic facts to divert their opponents' attention from them. In my opinion, this is the end of discussion.

I will, however, address your points on a more individual basis as to why I disagree with them. I think you nailed my biggest pet peeve: "Mistakes happen, people shouldnt have to take their livelyhood away because of a small mishap of a $1 product." That 'mistake' was a willful choice by two people to engage in behavior that they both knew very well could result in the creation of a new human life. The mistake that happened is that they engaged in this behavior, but this wasn't really a mistake at all - it was a choice. As such, the persons involved should be held fully responsible for the outcome of these actions. An equipment malfunction, drunkenness, or what have you cannot mitigate the responsibility inherent in the creation of human life. In other words, I fail to see how you can void a human life as a mere matter of convenience for yourself and your partner when you freely engaged in the activity leading to that juncture. (Obviously not directed at YOU in particular, but hopefully you'll understand where I'm going)

I also strongly disagree that distribution of more birth control will reduce the number of abortions. As I've mentioned before, there's a reason Planned Parenthood is the global leader in both industries - they're inherently linked. Abortion business not doing so well? Go distribute free condoms at the middle schools and high schools. Back to business as usual.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The duty of the judicial branch includes: Interpreting our laws, deciding how our laws apply in specific cases and determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. Anyone who misinterprets these acts as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," as generally decried by social conservatives when their social conservative views aren't upheld by the courts, simply doesn't understand the duties of the judicial branch. Checks and balances people, checks and balances.

Well said. :beer:

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government and has an important role in the checks and balances system. There is a reason why the US Supreme Court is the final say in determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. If not, we would have a lot of lop sided laws which are generally a knee jerk reaction to events whether local or national.

Also, it is the Supreme Court, and the spearation of the courts and the legislature, that prevents a country like the USA from ever becoming a fascist state. There are constitutional limits re: what the legislature (politicians) can get away with.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CycloWizard is of course correct. There can be no compromise of abortion. The emotionally imagined and projected rights of an individual in potential, a fetus that is simply a life-form on the level of an amoeba or hydra, or thousand year old duck egg people eat for breakfast in China cannot be allowed to preempt the real and actualized rights of women. We cannot enslave women because some people are not able to rise above their fantasies, imagining themselves to be the victims or some Satanist's abortion vacuum cleaner. These fantasies are created and sustained by the emotionally ignorant, unconscious individuals who have no introspective capacity and do not realize that what they project is happening to the fetus is what, emotionally, happened to them as children. We all feel aborted, don't know it, are terrified to know that we do, and remain unconscious all our lives of the massive trauma we all died from in childhood. Instead we uselessly waste our lives trying to change 'our there' when the cure can only be had 'in here'. In order to heal you have to re-suffer consciously what has already happened to you.

What criteria have to be met in order to consider the termination of a human life murder rather than a right that must be protected?

I think it would be ok to abort a fetus at any time prior to birth. The termination of 1-2 month old babies should be classified as infanticide, not murder. I question whether a significant legal penalty should be attached to the act of infanticide.

 

[Stunt]

Yes i agree you answered my original question semi effectively, i find it interesting however that most religious people are very compassionate, ie. helping fellow man, donating money to good causes, and having a social safety net, these are all derived from principles that the bible preaches.
Giving up on all those values for a potential judiciary position seems out there for me, but then again, you are conservative, so you don't care about the above values.

I do think birth control would help, say ever woman had access to the pill, practically free, and men had access to a male version of the pill...it's coming out soon, AND condoms were distributed. There would be not margin of error, you have a condom that breaks 1 in a 1000 times if used right, you've got each pill effective 99.995 percent of the time. This WILL drastically reduce abortions, i dont think you can deny this unless useing the arguement that ppl should have sex. This is usually what social conservatives advocate at the same time...abstinance.

Anyways, those are my points, thanks for the response though, you have an interesting point of view. Hardly practical (i'm assuming, since you have not addressed the alternate illegal modes of abortion: i.e women are not going to ahve a kid they dont want...garanteed)....but good for discussion

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tss4
who said anything about terminating 'a human' life?

Exactly. Dehumanize it to make exterminating it more palletable.

As oppsed to what you're doing, which is humanising (or really, anthropomorphizing - giving human qualities to something which is not human) the fetus, to make abortion seem more unpalatable.