Post Reply
Page 24 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24
Switch to Forum Live View Abortion is Murder.
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 4:31PM #231
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Nov 8, 2009 -- 9:03AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Abortion of a pregnancy caused by rape has the same effect as an abortion of a pregnancy caused by consentual sex. Yet you would allow the former under the law, but not the latter. So clearly your basis for restricting abortion isn't the effects is has on embryos or fetuses.



So... Just how long have I been typing out the same thing ad nauseum only to have you ignore it? I started posting here in-- What?-- January? And it's now November? So that'd be about eleven months now? Ah well... Even though I know I've written this about a gajillion now, I 'spose once more can't hurt.


For as long as I've been posting here, I've said that abortion should be disallowed unless there is due cause for one. Now, just to humor the bolded part, do you know the difference between a pregnancy caused via rape and one caused via the consensual actions of two individuals? One involves a violation of one's rights and the other one doesn't. Do you know why I'm "okay" with abortions in case of rape? Because there isn't anywhere under the law where you can violate someone's rights and then turn around and make the one who had their rights violated responsible for the product of that violation. Nowhere under the law is this ever true, and it shouldn't be true in the case of pregnancy. It's quite simple.


Now, your contention that "my basis for restricting abortion isn't the effects is has on embryos or fetuses" based on the fact that I'm not absolute in my restriction on abortion is flawed, because it ignores the fact that there are-- You know-- Exceptions to the proverbial rule where a certain action would be deemed to be legal whereas that same action would be deemed illegal otherwise. For example, murder is illegal, but there are circumstances in which one killing another will be justified. Does that mean that the law isn't concerned with protecting the life and well-being of those over whom it presides from being infringed upon by others? No. What it means is that there are situations in which certain actions are justified. If the law didn't care about the effects certain actions had on others, then it would allow people to kill others at their leisure.


Clearly, your understanding of what I've been writing out isn't as great as you think.


You go on to claim that the morality of an act such as murder needn't be and shouldn't be the basis for its being illegal -- because then it's subject to public "whim" (dang that democracy thing again, where people have a say in how they are governed). So what is your basis for wanting abortion (other than in cases of rape or life/health of the mother being threatened) to be illegal?



See my response above. 


:)


Oh, BTW, you are creating a new category of "personhood," or perhaps it should be called "non-personhood," if you say it ought to be legal to abort a fetus or embryo that resulted from a rape, but that all others must be protected under law, since according to your view a person exists at conception. You criticize the PC view, claiming it's trying to create different categories of people, but you are doing it yourself.



Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... So let me understand this correctly. I'm creating a new category of that which I consider to be irrelevant? Really? REALLY...? I don't think so. I say this a lot, but straw men are bad. And so are blatant misrepresentations of what the other is typing out. It's a heck of a lot easier to respond to those things and those points someone doesn't make then does which they do.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 4:39PM #232
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:06PM, amcolph wrote:

So you do put attitude towards abortion on a left-right political spectrum.


When I allowed that the fundythumpers do it, you said not.


I wonder what a politically liberal Roman Catholic would think?




I'm thinking you're misunderstanding. Currently, abortion "laws"-- And I use that term lightly-- Are to the left of where most Americans want them to be. As I've told NJ on numerous occassions, most Americans falls right of the left and left of the right, taking a more centrist view on abortion where support for abortion in cases of rape, incest, health concerns to the mother and fetal defects remain rather high while support for abortion in cases where the woman says she can't afford a child or simply doesn't want a child remains rather low. If states were allowed to make their own laws on abortion, most states would restrict abortion much more than it is now but wouldn't make it completely illegal. Of course, that's not good for most of the PC'ers here so...


*shrugs*

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 4:45PM #233
amcolph
Posts: 17,670

Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:39PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:06PM, amcolph wrote:

So you do put attitude towards abortion on a left-right political spectrum.


When I allowed that the fundythumpers do it, you said not.


I wonder what a politically liberal Roman Catholic would think?




I'm thinking you're misunderstanding. Currently, abortion "laws"-- And I use that term lightly-- Are to the left of where most Americans want them to be. As I've told NJ on numerous occassions, most Americans falls right of the left and left of the right, taking a more centrist view on abortion where support for abortion in cases of rape, incest, health concerns to the mother and fetal defects remain rather high while support for abortion in cases where the woman says she can't afford a child or simply doesn't want a child remains rather low. If states were allowed to make their own laws on abortion, most states would restrict abortion much more than it is now but wouldn't make it completely illegal. Of course, that's not good for most of the PC'ers here so...


*shrugs*




So you're calling PL "right" and PC "left" but making no implication whatever that these designations are coherent with the political right and left.  I see...


It's just a coincidence. Innocent

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 4:56PM #234
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:45PM, amcolph wrote:

So you're calling PL "right" and PC "left" but making no implication whatever that these designations are coherent with the political right and left.  I see...


It's just a coincidence. 




If you can find where I've call PL "right" and PC "left", equating them with the political right or left, I'll give you an e-cookie (Especially since it's hard to pigeonhole people or movements into either group) <_<


No, what I said was that current abortion laws are further to left then most people want them, and that if states were allowed to regulate their own abortion laws that they would more-or-less adopt a centrist position-- Right of left but left of right.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 5:08PM #235
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:31PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Nov 8, 2009 -- 9:03AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Abortion of a pregnancy caused by rape has the same effect as an abortion of a pregnancy caused by consentual sex. Yet you would allow the former under the law, but not the latter. So clearly your basis for restricting abortion isn't the effects is has on embryos or fetuses.



So... Just how long have I been typing out the same thing ad nauseum only to have you ignore it? I started posting here in-- What?-- January? And it's now November? So that'd be about eleven months now? Ah well... Even though I know I've written this about a gajillion now, I 'spose once more can't hurt.


For as long as I've been posting here, I've said that abortion should be disallowed unless there is due cause for one. Now, just to humor the bolded part, do you know the difference between a pregnancy caused via rape and one caused via the consensual actions of two individuals? One involves a violation of one's rights and the other one doesn't. Do you know why I'm "okay" with abortions in case of rape? Because there isn't anywhere under the law where you can violate someone's rights and then turn around and make the one who had their rights violated responsible for the product of that violation. Nowhere under the law is this ever true, and it shouldn't be true in the case of abortion. It's quite simple.


Now, your contention that "my basis for restricting abortion isn't the effects is has on embryos or fetuses" based on the fact that I'm not absolute in my restriction on abortion is flawed, because it ignores the fact that there are-- You know-- Exceptions to the proverbial rule where a certain action would be deemed to be legal whereas that same action would be deemed illegal otherwise. For example, murder is illegal, but there are circumstances in which one killing another will be justified. Does that mean that the law isn't concerned with protecting the life and well-being of those over whom it presides from being infringed upon by others? No. What it means is that there are situations in which certain actions are justified. If the law didn't care about the effects certain actions had on others, then it would allow people to kill others at their leisure.


Clearly, your understanding of what I've been writing out isn't as great as you think.


The law does not define murder so as to include killing of others in self-defense, or non-premeditated killings, and so on. So would you agree with me that if the pregnancy is caused by rape, an abortion of that pregnancy is not murder? I ask because you have disagreed with me elsewhere when I said abortion is not murder. Yet in the above I see some potential common ground.


You go on to claim that the morality of an act such as murder needn't be and shouldn't be the basis for its being illegal -- because then it's subject to public "whim" (dang that democracy thing again, where people have a say in how they are governed). So what is your basis for wanting abortion (other than in cases of rape or life/health of the mother being threatened) to be illegal?



See my response above. 


:)


You say that abortion without due cause should be illegal. OK, let me rephrase. What is your basis deciding what cases have "due cause" and what don't? Let me remind you, I'm not asking you to restate what cases you think have due cause. I'm asking what you base your view of "due cause" on. Let's examine one specific example. A woman is 38 years old, married with 3 children. She and her husband have decided that they have completed their family and do not want to have the child.  I assume you would not consider this to be "due cause" to warrant a legal abortion. So, I ask, why not? If not because you view such a termination as immoral, what is the reason that doesn't cut it for you as due cause?


Oh, BTW, you are creating a new category of "personhood," or perhaps it should be called "non-personhood," if you say it ought to be legal to abort a fetus or embryo that resulted from a rape, but that all others must be protected under law, since according to your view a person exists at conception. You criticize the PC view, claiming it's trying to create different categories of people, but you are doing it yourself.



Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... So let me understand this correctly. I'm creating a new category of that which I consider to be irrelevant? Really? REALLY...? I don't think so. I say this a lot, but straw men are bad. And so are blatant misrepresentations of what the other is typing out. It's a heck of a lot easier to respond to those things and those points someone doesn't make then does which they do.



 

 Let me quote from your post to alcomorph in this thread on Nov.6 12:01PM (CST).



It doesn't matter your stage of development. A human being is a human being. Trying to subdivide the human population based on where they are in their life is, well... It's asinine, is what it is. Should a two year old have fewer protections under the law than a three year old? A one year old fewer protections under the law than a two year old? How about someone five minutes before they're born when compared to someone five minutes after their born? In essence, this is what the PC argument boils down to. They simply pick a point on a line and say "Everything after this point has some inherrent worth while everything before this line doesn't", yet they never explain why others should accept that point as anything other than arbitrary.




So if you allow that there may be due cause to intentionally abort a pregnancy caused by rape, you are placing the embryo/fetus that would be aborted into a different category -- one that is unprotected from abortion while all other fetuses and embryos that resulted from consentual sex are protected under your rules. No, your exception is not based on gestational age, it is based on circumstances of conception. Do I think that distinction is asinine? No, of course not. It seems entirely reasonable. I find some of the exceptions based on gestational age to be well-reasoned also. So I do not agree with your contention that they are all "asinine."


And let me again remind you that I cited an article with a review of the explanations of the evidence and reasoning supporting other views for when personhood begins. It's not that PCers never explain why others should accept their views. I have cited that article at least 10 times when pointing out that everyone doesn't agree on when personhood begins (I've cited it several times when faith has claimed that "science has determined that life [as in personhood] begins at conception.") It's fine that you do not wish to consider any other views on that matter. But don't make claims that PCers never give any reasoned explanation or argument to support their views. That is not true.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 5:11PM #236
amcolph
Posts: 17,670

Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:56PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Nov 8, 2009 -- 4:45PM, amcolph wrote:

So you're calling PL "right" and PC "left" but making no implication whatever that these designations are coherent with the political right and left.  I see...


It's just a coincidence. 




If you can find where I've call PL "right" and PC "left", equating them with the political right or left, I'll give you an e-cookie (Especially since it's hard to pigeonhole people or movements into either group) <_<


No, what I said was that current abortion laws are further to left then most people want them, and that if states were allowed to regulate their own abortion laws that they would more-or-less adopt a centrist position-- Right of left but left of right.




 


LOL!  No, I'm just teasing you about the choice of "left" and "right" as designators.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 24 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook