Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If I needed to make a list of the people in this forum that need someone else to defend them...….from my experience ironclm does not make the list.

If she is unhappy with something you have said I'm sure she will let you know

She came on here and volunteered an experience in her life. One she appears to be quite OK with (which I respect). In fact, I may be mistaken, but I think it was she who originally used the term in question.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironmayb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
If I needed to make a list of the people in this forum that need someone else to defend them...….from my experience ironclm does not make the list.

I don’t think she needs someone to defend her either, but slowman apparently thinks he need to defend her.

Quote:
If she is unhappy with something you have said I'm sure she will let you know

I have no doubt. In fact when she shared her experience with abortion here it solidified her position as someone who can handle things. Not everyone is willing to share such things because of the vulnerability aspect. There’s a great deal of strength in casting aside the fear of vulnerability.

Quote:
She came on here and volunteered an experience in her life. One she appears to be quite OK with (which I respect). In fact, I may be mistaken, but I think it was she who originally used the term in question.

Yes, her honesty and self assured stance on her experience and her views are worthy of respect.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.

clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:


Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.


clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.


your honor I rest my case......
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.

clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.

I think the question is pretty clear. You seemed to say that the wishes of the “mother” change the status of that thing in the womb.

In one case it’s a “clump of cells” in the other it’s a baby or potential human.

I think it’s an interesting thing to ponder v

Similar thing is that in some states if, say, a mugger kills a fetus that the mom wanted it’s murder. But that very same mom can have a doctor kill it and it’s a right guaranteed under the constitution.

I’m just wondering how people can reconcile those two seemingly contradictory ideas.

And again, just so we’re clear, I don’t have an answer and my asking you is for the purpose of hearing other people’s ideas.

My inquiries seem to have made a bunch of people very defensive.

I’m as pro choice as you can get and everyone seems to be totally ignoring that.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You seem to be willfully lacking in understanding. Up to a relatively late gestation point, I view a fetus as a clump of cells (a living clump with the potential of becoming a human, but so unformed as lacking in specific independent rights). The mother or couple may attach great importance to it, or not at all. Up to a point I believe that the choice of the mother to attach importance to that clump is of paramount importance. OTOH, some believe that a fertilized egg is fully human. Some folks believe that an unfertilized egg contains potentiality which shouldn't be interfered with via birth control. According to some, my friends who used IVF to conceive are murderers, as are women who use IUD's. Whether I agree or not,

... (wait for it) ...

I understand all of those points of views. It's just not that hard to understand viewspoints that differ from your own, especially on issues that are so closely tied to belief (the point at which an egg/embryo/fetus/baby gets rights which exceed the mother). Why can't you understand the legitimacy of other opinions?

BTW, you and I are clumps of cells, as is everyone in the world. We differentiate between the welfare of American clumps of cells over the rights of starving clumps of cells in other countries all the time. Why do we do that?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You seem to be willfully lacking in understanding.

Actually no. Keep reading...

Quote:
Up to a relatively late gestation point, I view a fetus as a clump of cells (a living clump with the potential of becoming a human, but so unformed as lacking in specific independent rights). The mother or couple may attach great importance to it, or not at all.

In other words you agree with me almost exactly. If you read my posts in this you will see just that because I have stated this very same thing numerous time in a few different ways.

Quote:
OTOH, some believe that a fertilized egg is fully human.

I disagree with those people and even though I disagree with them I am interested in how they come to that opinion. Usually but not always it’s religious. What I’m more interested in is those who come to this view without any religion. There are some, like BLeP for example.

Quote:
Some folks believe that an unfertilized egg contains potentiality which shouldn't be interfered with via birth control. According to some, my friends who used IVF to conceive are murderers, as are women who use IUD's.

Those people are idiots and I have no interest in hearing their justifications for such absurd thinking. That why I don’t engage with them. Zero interest.

Quote:
I understand all of those points of views. It's just not that hard to understand viewspoints that differ from your own, especially on issues that are so closely tied to belief (the point at which an egg/embryo/fetus/baby gets rights which exceed the mother). Why can't you understand the legitimacy of other opinions?

I do understand those view points and I don’t question the legitimacy of them (except for the anti-birth control dopes). I have stated explicitly here that I don’t have a right or wrong answer. I’m exploring the different view and I’m interested in how people come to their views. Sometimes I’ll ask challenging questions because explanations given don’t add up or haven’t fully explained how they have come to their view.

I’ve had a couple of people here who have “played along” and I now understand how they got to where they are.

Barry sees this purely scientifically (still the lingering question of when the clump becomes human).

BLeP sees it through the lens of his experience of trying to make a baby.

Ironclm sees it through the experience of having an abortion, among other things.

Dapper Dan sees it through a religious lens.

Quote:
BTW, you and I are clumps of cells, as is everyone in the world.

Yes. And I’ll ask you this, again I just want to hear what you think, it’s not a trick and I don’t have a right or wrong answer. This is an exploration of thought....

What makes the clump of cells we are now special? Are we special at all? My family is special to me but not to society as a whole so are we really special?

Quote:
We differentiate between the welfare of American clumps of cells over the rights of starving clumps of cells in other countries all the time. Why do we do that?

Nationalism.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
My inquiries seem to have made a bunch of people very defensive. I’m as pro choice as you can get and everyone seems to be totally ignoring that.

nobody could possibly ignore you. you make that impossible. we all know where you stand. in detail. in spectacular detail. nobody is getting defensive. when you write in a crass, off-putting way, people note that, you reject that interpretation, and confuse that reaction as defensive.

i applaud your curiosity. best thing about you. but then after inquiring, you berate the person giving the answer. not the best thing about you. cathy tried to give you her explanation. in vain. i did not post to help her. i posted to help you.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs" thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs.

Quite frankly, so what? Everytime a law is passed that not everyone agrees with, some portion of the country is "forced" to adhere to someone else's beliefs. You say this as if any religious group is able to simply implement laws without the views of dissenting Americans figuring into the process. Take any issue, and you'll find people on both sides. The people on either side are free to support their chosen position based on whatever ideology informs their understanding. Religious people are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when forming an opinion on the issues. Atheists or secularists are free to use that framework of thought to inform their opinions. Both sides (and everyone who lies on the spectrum somewhere in between) are free to lobby their representatives, vote on the issues, and otherwise attempt to influence the future of their local, state, and federal governments. You act as if somehow it's not kosher for religious people to do that.

Quote:
religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."

In the context we're discussing, it IS exactly like any other interest. You CAN NOT prohibit people from lobbying their government, or informing their position opinions, or choosing their representation using religious belief as an underpinning of their choices.

Quote:
religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it.

It's not hiding behind anything Dan. It's acknowledging that religious people have every right to include their religious beliefs in forming their opinions about how the government should work and who should represent them. The Constitution does not prohibit people from favoring one law over another, or one politician over another, for religious reasons. It simply doesn't.

Quote:
if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.

You're not correct. If a religious group, using the lawful procedures of our country, successfully pushes through a law that enacts some policy that is in line with their religious beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make the law unconstitutional. Just because a law is in line with a religious belief and lobbied for by religious groups, that doesn't constitute an unconstitutional breach of your freedoms. Let's say that Religion X views speeding as a mortal sin. Religion X has sufficient numbers across the country that results in significant representation in Congress. Religion X lobbies their Congressmen, governors, and other politicians to increase penalties for speeding. Congress passes a law that increases the penalties for speeding. This law was passed largely due to the demand signal from adherents of Religion X. That doesn't make the law unconstitutional, because increasing the penalties for speeding does not amount to establishment of a state religion. Just because people's opinions on the law are informed by their religious beliefs, that doesn't constitutionally preclude them from influencing the law or the government.

Quote:
torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.

No doubt, and pretty obvious. Not really pertinent to the type of situation we're talking about.

Quote:
engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.

As I said before, you can't require people to take part in your religious rites. Again, not pertinent.

Quote:
abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.

More of the same from you. Not pertinent. I stipulated long ago that the laws can't be written to require anyone to take part in religious events or rites and that a law against speeding, for example, can't be written like "Wherefore God says speeding is wrong, therefore speeding shall be penalized by fines or prison."

Quote:
and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.

What the fuck? I did not ever say it was ok for people to inflict their religions in any ways that compare to those examples. Try again Dan.

Quote:
but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs.

Wrong. The 1A also guarantees that the government won't/can't infringe on the right of citizens to freely practice their religions. You can't insist that religious people set aside any religious belief when forming their opinions on laws, politicians, or other governmental matters, and still claim to be supporting the protections provided by the 1A. It's asinine.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.

I just spent two days presenting at a conference of 200+ attorneys, so, I feel your pain. Other than the fact that about 30 of them can drink with the best of them, not much good comes from large gatherings of attorneys.

To the thread in general - Wow. Just, wow.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
nobody could possibly ignore you.

Heh, I've made a good faith effort to ignore him. But Duffy can't just post his opinion once. He keeps repeating it until the thread is all about him. And then everyone has to quote it all day.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


◼︎ We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green. - Chesterton
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What point are you trying to make?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Barry sees this purely scientifically (still the lingering question of when the clump becomes human).

That question was put to Slowman, not me. I thought he gave a pretty good answer.


At conception - not A human.

Right before birth - definitely a human.


So somewhere between those two points. Much like there isn't an exact score on an engineering exam that can definitively discern "qualified" vs "not qualified" engineer, or an exact, to the decimal ideal temperature in my living room, there isn't an exact point in time where a fetus goes from not human to human.

For me, anything before brain waves isn't a human. I can't really say at what point after that I would consider it a human.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
For me, anything before brain waves isn't a human. I can't really say at what point after that I would consider it a human.

How does it matter whether it is human or not? Is it neutral/beneficial to allow destroying non-human life but harmful (to those of us making the laws) to allow destroying human life (that isn't part of our law making club)?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amazingly, another thread about abortion has failed to resolve the issue. Maybe next time.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dapper Dan wrote:
Quote:
For me, anything before brain waves isn't a human. I can't really say at what point after that I would consider it a human.

How does it matter whether it is human or not? Is it neutral/beneficial to allow destroying non-human life but harmful (to those of us making the laws) to allow destroying human life (that isn't part of our law making club)?

I don’t think it matters if it’s human or not.

Many cultures throughout history practiced infanticide for a variety of reasons including human sacrifice (all over the world), because they were female (mostly native americans), because they were twins (again, native americans) or as a form of birth control in pre-Islamic Arabia.

We can argue all day long about when a zygote-fetus-clump-of-cells becomes human and their will never be an agreement.

So what we really should be arguing is - is it acceptable/beneficial as a society to take life (whatever you want to call it - “abortion” or “reproductive health services” or “infanticide”) in certain circumstances.

Now you may think that sounds crazy but look at it this way...

The one thing that we all can agree upon (well most of us) is that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.

One step in doing that is to acknowledge that it is in fact the taking of life. That makes it a bit more unpalatable for most people and so they may try a little harder to prevent pregnancy in the first place by using birth control or abstaining from vaginal sex.

I don’t think we should shame people for wanting an abortion I just think we should be a little honest about what it really is. If this makes people uncomfortable, good. That’s the point.

But in the end abortion should remain legal, IMHO.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

The one thing that we all can agree upon (well most of us) is that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.

I agree. Just like "the wall" has distracted both sides from resolving how to really reduce the # of illegal entries, "abortion" has distracted both sides from resolving to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Political bloodsport is far more exciting than doing hard work to solve actual problems.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Duffy wrote:

The one thing that we all can agree upon (well most of us) is that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.

I agree. Just like "the wall" has distracted both sides from resolving how to really reduce the # of illegal entries, "abortion" has distracted both sides from resolving to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Political bloodsport is far more exciting than doing hard work to solve actual problems.

Well this is why I just immediately write off the ant-birth control crowd.

If you don’t believe in birth control or abortion then you go right ahead and do your thing but making that a policy that everyone else has to abide by would be a net negative for our modern society.

On the other end of that we should cool it with the euphemisms.

Not every decision we make (as a society) is easy or clean.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs" thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs.


Quite frankly, so what? Everytime a law is passed that not everyone agrees with, some portion of the country is "forced" to adhere to someone else's beliefs. You say this as if any religious group is able to simply implement laws without the views of dissenting Americans figuring into the process. Take any issue, and you'll find people on both sides. The people on either side are free to support their chosen position based on whatever ideology informs their understanding. Religious people are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when forming an opinion on the issues. Atheists or secularists are free to use that framework of thought to inform their opinions. Both sides (and everyone who lies on the spectrum somewhere in between) are free to lobby their representatives, vote on the issues, and otherwise attempt to influence the future of their local, state, and federal governments. You act as if somehow it's not kosher for religious people to do that.

Quote:
religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."


In the context we're discussing, it IS exactly like any other interest. You CAN NOT prohibit people from lobbying their government, or informing their position opinions, or choosing their representation using religious belief as an underpinning of their choices.

Quote:
religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it.


It's not hiding behind anything Dan. It's acknowledging that religious people have every right to include their religious beliefs in forming their opinions about how the government should work and who should represent them. The Constitution does not prohibit people from favoring one law over another, or one politician over another, for religious reasons. It simply doesn't.

Quote:
if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.


You're not correct. If a religious group, using the lawful procedures of our country, successfully pushes through a law that enacts some policy that is in line with their religious beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make the law unconstitutional. Just because a law is in line with a religious belief and lobbied for by religious groups, that doesn't constitute an unconstitutional breach of your freedoms. Let's say that Religion X views speeding as a mortal sin. Religion X has sufficient numbers across the country that results in significant representation in Congress. Religion X lobbies their Congressmen, governors, and other politicians to increase penalties for speeding. Congress passes a law that increases the penalties for speeding. This law was passed largely due to the demand signal from adherents of Religion X. That doesn't make the law unconstitutional, because increasing the penalties for speeding does not amount to establishment of a state religion. Just because people's opinions on the law are informed by their religious beliefs, that doesn't constitutionally preclude them from influencing the law or the government.

Quote:
torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.


No doubt, and pretty obvious. Not really pertinent to the type of situation we're talking about.

Quote:
engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.


As I said before, you can't require people to take part in your religious rites. Again, not pertinent.

Quote:
abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.


More of the same from you. Not pertinent. I stipulated long ago that the laws can't be written to require anyone to take part in religious events or rites and that a law against speeding, for example, can't be written like "Wherefore God says speeding is wrong, therefore speeding shall be penalized by fines or prison."

Quote:
and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.


What the fuck? I did not ever say it was ok for people to inflict their religions in any ways that compare to those examples. Try again Dan.

Quote:
but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs.


Wrong. The 1A also guarantees that the government won't/can't infringe on the right of citizens to freely practice their religions. You can't insist that religious people set aside any religious belief when forming their opinions on laws, politicians, or other governmental matters, and still claim to be supporting the protections provided by the 1A. It's asinine.

friend, you are free to vote for whatever you want. you and i both agree on that. you may vote your religious preferences. nothing stopping you. and, you may engage in, without govt intervention, your religious rites, and behaviors, with few exceptions (polygamy, and even that's iffy). no disagreement between us, not in how we think, and not in how either of us has explained his views in this thread.

a religious majority in my community is free to vote into law or practice, through our legislature, schoolboard, or any other authority, any law it wants. but, i am free to challenge the constitutionality of that law. and religion (for the 3rd time) is a specific constitutional carve-out: both protection for and protection from religion. the SCOTUS cases above, and others besides, are clear. you can't enshrine into law a behavior that all society must adhere to, if that behavior is in service of a religion (or is in service of a lack of any religion). there isn't a SCOTUS ruling against such a law that doesn't have its advocate arguing why it's not afoul of 1A. sometimes these advocates win (i believe a case in nebraska won successfully arguing that its recitation of something biblical was more a case of tradition than religion). but quite often these advocates lose.

christians are free to exercise their religion. your kids are usually free to pray together at public school, subject to certain prohibitions. and if your community is 98 percent christian it is free to vote in superintendents who'll enact a policy of public sponsored school prayer. but if that policy is challenged your community will lose.

abortion is an interesting case, and i'm not at all certain that a ban in it would withstand a 1A challenge. christians argue among themselves when viability occurs (most adopting a convenient interpretation that leaves open the process of in vitro fertilization). these intramural arguments are further evidence that the decision is a religious one. i took a break between the last sentence and this to google "establishment clause" along with "anti-abortion" and there's a spitload of scholarly debates. whether abortion is an establishment clause candidate appears a legitimate debate.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
How does it matter whether it is human or not?

Specifically it is important with respect to the question of whether or not it receives the rights of humans. If it was, for example, a dog, then it wouldn't receive human rights but rather animal rights (can kill, but not brutalize, for example).

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This debate always, IMO, suffers from the use if terminology that conflates issues. A zygote is "human life," by objective measure. It's a stage of human development, part of the life cycle of humanity.

So what. It doesn't describe what we're debating, and that is Personhood.

A zygote, blastocyst, or embryo is not a Person, though it quite clearly is "human life." A verifiably brain dead human has lost their Personhood, and so what we do with brain dead humans on life support does not possess the same rights as a person on life support suffering from pneumonia, acute renal failure, etc., and the courts very often have to step in and rule that they're no longer deserving of the time, energy, and resources it takes to preserve a person's life. Because that person no longer exists, and has no reasonable chance at regaining their viable personhood.

What we're talking about is persons' rights, and rightly, we've decided that the rights of the pregnant woman take priority over the human life inside of them. There is no clear line of distinction as to when a new human life attains personhood, and so we defer to the rights of the person who stands to sustain harm if that human life is permitted to develop into a person. The right focuses almost entirely on the non-existent rights of the unborn, while the left (and others) focus entirely on the right of the pregnant woman, and her right to not have the State demand that she assume the very real risks of pregnancy and delivery, not to mention the very real risks to her ability to reach her social and economic potential. You can't ignore those risks, as the right tends to do via legislation and moralizing, and still respect the individual rights of the woman.

That is in no way an endorsement of the practice of abortion. I hate it, but we have to acknowledge the reality of the situation and accept that necessary evil while doing everything humanly possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'd also contend (not trying to sound callous) that right's to life are centered mainly around:

1 - pain and anguish of loved ones
2 - empathy toward the fear of dying
3 - emotional guilt that comes with the killing of another human
4 - the social contract (ie you don't kill my wife, I won't kill yours)

I'll also add in 5 - religious reasons, but unfortunately, you can justify just about anything using religion, so I don't really accept "because of my religion" as a moral justification. What you are really saying is, "Someone else came up with a reason and I chose to follow it." (this applies both to feeding the hungry and flying planes into buildings).

With regard to a zygote or embryo, 1 is currently left up to the mother. 2 doesn't apply because it can't feel. 3 is what is partially driving many to either want to ban abortion, or to very much not like it. 4 doesn't really apply.

5 is self explanatory.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you are not religious then 3 shouldn't really apply either...another human is no different that a stalk of corn, or even a rock...it's just an assembly of elements and of no worth in and of itself if nobody loves it or benefits from it. The "right to life" should only apply to those able to make the laws, as a social contract of self-interest and self-preservation. Reason 4 is the only legitimate reason, and as you say it wouldn't apply to a baby that nobody wants....or really a person of any age that nobody wants as long as they are not among those making the social contract.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
If you are not religious then 3 shouldn't really apply either...another human is no different that a stalk of corn, or even a rock...it's just an assembly of elements and of no worth in and of itself if nobody loves it or benefits from it.


If that's the only reason that you don't kill people, then please, for the sake of humanity, stay religious.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply

Prev Next