1. That is not proof she did have awareness. That you have the choice to unplug them is inconsequential to the argument.
2. Proof of consciousness can be found in activity in the parts of the brain which allow the possibility of this.
If those parts do not exist, you know there is no consciousness, therefore the freedom to choose abortion is not in any conceivable way the freedom to end a conscious life.
That is the point.
- Conciousness is defined as having an awareness of our external surroundings or internal objects. Mentally illed people, and people in coma do not have it or they have it wrong.
You are incorrect. The mentally ill and people in comas do have a degree of awareness. Your information is incorrect.
Fetuses however has an awareness of their being, they know how to organize their body cells, produce what is needed and heck, they even know it if their mother wanted them or not.
You are incorrect. Fetuses do not have awareness and know nothing of their mother or anything else, and nothing on earth "knows how to organize their body cells" that is a ridiculous notion. This is a very silly sentence all in all.
- Im afraid your the one lacking here. The point of my argument is that, morality defines rules as a whole, legal however creates exceptions.
Something declared as legal will not always be moral. But something moral will always be legal. It is up to your biasedness to decide on which should be followed
Your grasp of the language is as limited as your knowledge of logic. I am not arguing legality and I don't care about legality other than I think it is more moral for one to be free to choose.
-Denial is a psychological defense.
Sometimes, but I'm not denying anything. This statement makes no sense at all here. You seem to be just randomly stringing together nouns and verbs in hopes it makes a sentence.
If you are gonna accuse my links as a fraud, then you are supposed to carry the burden of proof.
I didn't accuse them of fraud, I accused them of being wrong.
A fetus has no self-awareness. That is a fact. The right to have an abortion had nothing to do with crime rates. That is another fact.
Why not just do your own research and search for "Effects of Abortion on Crime Rates"
I hope that you can be more openminded
Crime rate is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the abortion debate or any point I've made at all. Do you not understand that? Crime rate is not part of this debate. You might as well be providing links to unicorns.
- I have no plans on beating the dead horse. But its fine, everyone makes mistakes. Your attitude towards defeat defines your victory
You haven't replied to any of the arguments I've made.
Show me how a fetus is self aware.
Show me why it is morally wrong to abort.
You've done neither.
For example, someone who believes in an emphasis on Constitution and States' rights would be a Paleo-Conservative. The Libertarian leaning faction of the Republican Party (Ron Paul).
I believe in an emphasis on the Constitution and State's rights too. This means nothing and libertarians insistence that they have a monopoly on these things is insulting.
However, the list I made was an example as to the people who are dead center within the Libertarian ideology.
1. This is a country of over 300,000,000. You could have a list 1,000 times that length and my comment would still be valid.
2. I don't think your list is entirely accurate. Hardly fair claiming dead people would agree with the libertarian philosophies you claim to be central.
Some are complete Anarchists, others believe in policing against murder, rape, and thievery.
I don't think a complete anarchist would necessarily agree to be categorized within this group either.
But I'm glad that your rhetoric personifies your insecurities in your own argument. You asked for examples, I gave you a list. Not happy with it? How unfortunate. Please rebuttal instead of acting like a child, though.
That's a bit harsh. It seemed the perfect time to act childish since the argument replied to seemed so simple.
I'm very secure in my arguments. Libertarians in power are just as guilty of the "force" they claim they are against, the only difference is where this is applied. You can't force an employer to provide safe working conditions, you can force an individual to carry a baby to term. You can't force a business to not discriminate, but you can bar individuals from occupying those businesses. Then should one "libertarian" disagree with some thing another libertarian claims to be central to their belief, swiftly change the subject to the debt or taxes or whatever.
Claiming that those libertarians which have achieved some form of power fit your description of what you believe libertarians to be, is lunacy, because no two follow a platform of any sort that can be nailed down beyond generic descriptions that could apply to anyone "we believe in the constitution, we believe in states rights."
Claiming libertarians are any more interested in individual freedom than any other popular political philosophy utter rubbish. They are concerned with freedom for those with power from what I see, and I've never seen a single issue in which the result of a libertarian philosophy is not more power for the few and less for the masses, more money for the few less for the masses, more freedom for the few and less for the masses. Always under the guise of individual freedom. Everyone else is "free" sure, as in free to fend for themselves.
As for providing a rebuttal, rebuttal to what? A list? I did. My original point? You've made no counter argument, just the "rhetoric" you accuse me of.
Truly, are you not interested in the view points of others? Do you not wish to know how these ideologies work? How bored could you be to not have such a passion for debate yet try and debate anyway?
I'm very interested in the view points of others, and you'll notice the spectrum of subjects I debate is much wider than yours. I debate just about everything, from different angles, often multiple people at the same time. I'll enter a debate where I am the only opposing view against 3, 4, 5 hardcore idealogues who absolutely despise my opinion and not blink.
You seem to only have a single issue on the other hand, and you seem to only bother to defend that issue, predictably, never ever veering from that. If you ever do have a complaint about any labeled (or that you've labeled) libertarian, you conveniently ignore it for the "greater good" of defending this catch-all of a philosophy. I don't do this. I argue with liberals, conservatives, atheists, theists, gamers, rap fans, rock fans, you name it.
If I am bored, then you are boring.
A step forward in your analysis, though. You are quite a great representation of the American Democrat.
I am. And my arguments, include reasoning, possible solutions to problems, and I look at multiple sides of the issues. I do not sit back and complain whilst refusing to define my own stance or offer any specific ideas of my own for fear of argument.
To be fair however American Progressive Liberal would be the more accurate label.
Actually, not only is my previous agrument valid
If the exact same argument can be applied to the exact opposite situation it is necessarily and invalid argument. There's no way around that. I did show that to be an invalid argument. But as I think I said to you or maybe Pyg, people are bound to keep using it anyway so let's move on...
the majority of people are responsible who take sex and pregnancy seriously and understand the responsibilities either by raising a child or buying condoms.
The majority of people also don't get cancer. Majority is not a basis for what should or should not be covered I don't believe.
The only way irresponsible women will learn is if they pay for abortion out of their pocket or the costs of raising a child without being government since they thought they were mature enough to raise a human being.
That sounds a bit angry huh? Do you think you can teach them to stop being such sluts by making them have kids, or by making sure they pay more money? I hope not.
The fact is that not every woman who wants or needs and abortion is irresponsible, and there is a good argument to be made that in some cases abortion could be the more responsible choice. It is also the case that it would be the child being punished when you are getting into government assistance as far as food and whatnot, but that's a different subject entirely.
The circumstances and reasoning are not anyone's business. That some have the incorrect idea that the majority of abortions are flippant decisions made in the moment by irresponsible individuals is not a good enough reason to "punish" every woman who wants this procedure.
Not against abortion, either pay more in premiums or higher deductibles due to the increased risk or out of pocket.
If insurance weren't so overpriced, and if insurance had not spent the last several decades dodging legitimate claims while price gouging, I might agree that an extra charge for that type of coverage would be perfectly acceptable. That is not the situation though and I understand and completely support WA State's decision given current circumstances.
They did not have that coverage forced into their plans by the government, so they are not being forced to pay the cost.
Sure they are. They are being forced by their insurance.
I agree, having a bureaucratic mess riddled with corporatist regulations is a terrible outline for a health care system, except you wish to continue adding more regulations, bureaus and have suggested a government monopolization of the industry, where as I wish to take the free market approach.
Which has proven to be an excellent approach for selling Coke, iPads, movies, video games, etc. But people don't have an instinctual need for those things. They do have an instinctual need to try to continue living, which is way too much power to put in the hands of private industry, I believe. I believe they will inevitably exploit that for greater profit.
Now, your approach could work if there were not such a wide gap in wealth and there were not such incentive to price for the very richest only for greater profit, we could guarantee at least the vast majority of insurers were altruistic in their intentions, doctors were able to and wanted to donate a portion of their time to healing those who may not be able to afford insurance even in this utopian society, and probably you'd have to take insurance off of the market so there are no stockholders and their priority could legally be people over profits. You'd then need a groups of philanthropists willing to fund projects and studies...
That world unfortunately does not exist, so I believe universal care to be the best system possible for health care.
No because I am not legally forcing the insurance company to cover cancer, where as you want to legally force the insurance company to pay for abortions.
If I choose a coverage plan with cancer, its not being forced. If you have the government force insurance companies to include abortion coverage into all their plans, then it is being forced.
They are legally forced to cover cancer treatments though. Only recently and long due, but they are now forced to cover that. You seem to have this idea that most people truly have a choice. That is not how insurance works for most people in most places. Most areas have 1 and at the most 3 choices, and those are choices only for the company they work for, so really they have the "choice" of taking the company insurance or not taking it, and the options within that are very limited.
They must spend at least 80% of profits on coverage, you force them to cover another cost, thus, their profits go down, so either they have to spend less money on coverage or raise prices.
This may surprise you, but insurance has for years been spending nearly as much on lobbying, commercials, and bonuses for themselves, as on treatment and research. Shocking right ._. This while denying thousands and thousands treatment resulting in death in many many cases. Woohoo free market!
Anyway, forcing them to spend this percent on treatment has already lowered costs and when they do not spend 80% they actually have to send individuals rebates, and they have done this already.
Oh god, they're making... money? -shutters- It just makes me sick, knowing that people have business that make money, especially in large amounts!
Sarcasm noted.
I don't mind companies making money, that's a good thing. I do mind them do so at the cost of human life and whilst gobbling up a huge portion of our GDP. Greed for the sake of greed should not be rewarded.
...What exactly is the point when you believe the baby is too well developed to be aborted? It seems like a continuum so how do you set the point in your moral system?
That's a good question. The short answer is I trust that doctors have been very careful in their judgement of when this point is, and as mentioned, there simply is no physiological way for this awareness to exist. I see no reason why this would not be the case, there is nothing to be gained from inaccuracy here and a lot to be lost.
For the second part, and to be clear, my personal morality I do not believe to be a legitimate measure of whether another should or should not have an abortion. I am not them. But my personal morality does dictate that I support their freedom to come to their own conclusion so long as nothing is truly hurt. If it were possible for me to be pregnant, I personally would have the child unless I'd been raped, there were serious health issues, or if the child was going to be severely mentally retarded because I believe that to be a tortuous existence, but that last is another debate entirely.
My reasons are not moral ones though. I do not believe an abortion is morally wrong but I do understand how it could feel that way, the same way one feels for a person who has passed when it reality they are feeling for themselves, since that person no longer exists. If that makes sense.
You say the law is erring on the side of caution by only allowing abortion at so many weeks gestation. Do you believe then that if a baby is found to never have had self-awareness or consciousness then it would always be right to end it´s life, despite the potential for life in the future?
I would not call it right to end its life. I also would not call it wrong. If there is truly nothing in it with consciousness there is nothing truly lost. That something will develop awareness is "cool" for lack of a better term. It really is. But until that is developed everything we feel for that thing is projection. Potential is an excellent personal argument for any individual to have, but it should remain personal because in essence it is just our imagination, and if that potential is never realized, while for some it can certainly feel like something is lost, nothing is. It is like when a fictional character in a novel you love dies, to be crass but accurate.
I don't believe it should be mine or the laws place to dictate what decision another comes to in this case. If there is a question of whether somewhere in it there is a spark of awareness developing, then at that point I think it has a right to a chance at life, except in extreme cases of sickness, pain, and retardation, then of course it is a mercy to end it.
The point is that "I shouldn't have to pay for another person's abortion" is not really a valid argument when the alternative is actually more expensive.
When you apply the exact same argument in support of abortion it suddenly sounds pretty bad as you point out, and suddenly nearly anyone who thought that was a valid argument think it's now a terrible argument.
Which means that argument cannot be used without a large dose of hypocrisy. Don't get me wrong, it will be used, over and over and over again, but it should not be.
So, what legitimate argument is left?
Accepting that this is the health insurance system we operate under whether we like it or not, in this system the only argument left is "I'm against abortion"
Which is fine, but abortion is legal and it is not health insurance' place to legislate what it thinks is "right or wrong," that is an argument to be had in courts and voting booths.
I believe the $300 or so one-time cost is much cheaper than 18+ years of that child's health care.
You've convinced me.
As a cost measure, abortion should be encouraged. Any woman who gets an abortion instead of having that baby should not only have it covered but should get a 50% discount on her next 3 insurance bills.
... if abortion saves money, why would it not be covered, similar to the way insurance gives discounts for not smoking, or for gym memberships you mentioned earlier?
Chuz-Life... are you a proponent for making abortion " il legal?"
Yes or no?
Anti :Abortion
adjective
Against the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy.
You are dumb Chuz-Life. This is not a conclusion I've come to lightly, but you really weren't cut out for this.
This is not the first, second, or even third time you've allowed the semantics of a language to take precedence over the fundamental underlying argument being made and I see now it is not a tactic to cleverly distract, but you are genuinely confused by language.
If these simple things confuse you, you simply do not have the brain power to logically debate much of anything. You will continue to parrot arguments you like whilst not seeing the replies before you.
I'm saying this as a mercy, to you and to everyone subjected to your arguments. I get a lot of crap for treating the select few who qualify for this treatment, this way, but I feel it must be done. Where logic fails.
Please, go back to one of the other sites you once trolled and forget this one exists.
By definition, libertarians pick and choose when they want government just like every party, they are just more hypocritical in their criticism of others when they do the same thing.
Case in point:
It's one thing to have SOME views that lean towards Authoritarianism, but to have the amount of desire for Big government as Liberals and Conservatives do is far from the Libertarian mindset.
Cute list though.
