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.
That's not correct. I never said that I would be for it. I only said that it can be justified if doctors say it's necessary to save the woman's life and I also said that I would like to see doctors be legally required to at least try to save them both.
You expect others to accept that this position is pro-life, yet you refuse to see that supporting the right to choose is pro-choice. You are either being a hypocrite on purpose, or you have suffered some head injury.
I'm pro-choice. I am for the right for the woman to have a choice up to the time it is currently legal to choose. That is pro-choice.
If you are not able to decipher this simple difference then I'm sure you are not capable of figuring out the logical premise of my argument. Seriously, I can tell from you name this is important to you, but let others argue. You are horrible at it. Maybe start collecting stamps or something.
I'll bite...
What's so bad about abortion that you would not want to be recognized for what you are (i.e. Pro-abortion?)
You see Chuz-Life, most people are capable of various levels of thought, nuances if you will. This is difficult for you I see.
So, pro-choice means that you are for a woman's right to choose. Pro-abortion implies that you enjoy abortions like a day at the circus.
So you can be pro-choice, while at the same time realizing it is a serious decision for the person involved.
Don't hurt your brain trying to wrap you mind around that.
I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. And there is nothing "horrible" about being labeled as either, it is simply incorrect.
It is an incorrect label.
David, does the legal definition I quoted from the Unborn Victims of Violence Act support my claim that an abortion kills a child or not?
No, it does not. A child is a child, a foetus is a foetus.
You don't need to answer for me to know that it does. I just want to see if you can be open and honest (even) with yourself.
I do need to answer because pro-life individuals, especially ideologues like yourself, are harmful to society and would, unchecked, cause a lot of harm. So as boring and ridiculous as your arguments are I will reply.
Does it support your denials?
I don't think so.
"(d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "
These are the semantics of a language. There is no logic or argument here. I don't call it an "unborn child" I call it a foetus. It does not change my or your argument. Call it a tree for all I care.
If you saw an article that called a dog a cat would you start arguing that dogs were in fact cats?
That is exactly what you are doing here.
(statement editted, hope you dont mind)
- in what way, again? .
Isnt being unable to use the conciousness just the same as not having it?
Uh, I do mind because the entire premise is the brain. Not body parts. Brain. Do you seriously think I'm arguing about body parts? Why on earth would you change that?
Anyway, consciousness is not something you "consciously" use. You are or you are not conscious. Old people have consciousness. Mentally retarded people have consciousness. Foetuses do not have consciousness.
- Im afraid you do not understand the concept of morality (or your trolling). Execution and Abortion is Legal, but Murder has always been classified as immoral,
These two sentences do not go together. They make no sense. One does not relate to the other.
Like what I said before; Legal isnt always moral.
So?
-I said make your own research, right? but I dont mind if I gave you more.
Heres an article from Fox News
Part 2
Debunking the Myth
Fox news is an ideological soap box. They are not a reliable source for a debate site, nor news for that matter.
Your second link I already addressed. The issue is not and never was crime rates. That is a red herring.
I skipped practically ALOT of your arguments because they are just nothing but personal attacks or insults intended for Pro-life.
You've skipped all of my arguments. You have no idea what I'm talking about apparently.
Theres no need to emphasize on it, but you see.....we are in a debate website my friend. We have no need for flamewars.
Okay. Then debate instead of repeating the same stuff over and over.
1. No one on earth is seriously "pro-abortion" as in "Abortion is awesome!"
2. Why do you have like 3 strings of separate replies under one debate with me? Consolidate this junk.
3. Asterisks.
4. No, it's not black and white for me or for anyone. Which is why the point at which abortion is still legal is way, way, way before the point those parts of the brain which will eventually develop consciousness exist.
Answer all of this in the longer string of replies just before this one. I cover all of this there as well.
I said like 5 times my point is not what is or is not law. I've answered every point you set forth here several times now.
You keep saying "I never said it was illegal" then you list legalities, then you say "I never said it was illegal" then you list legalities.
Legality is not the premise from which I'm arguing. Knock it off troll. Go back to one of those sites that kicked you off, just change your name or something.
If you like you can highlight my arguments with asterisks, it makes it much clearer. There are directions under Show Help just below the Submit, Preview, and Check Spelling boxes.
My point is whether the fetus is self-aware or not is not a deciding factor seeing as it is not self aware until many months after birth. I thought you'd have been able to figure that out tbh.
That is the level of self-awareness that is visible to us. Those parts which are needed for self awareness begin developing in late pregnancy. The point where most abortions are legal is well before this time, "to be safe" if you will. Which the vast majority of pro-choice proponents are fine with, me for one. The point was in answer to your original comment about a "grey area" of when this begins, and my point was that we error way, way, way on the side of caution in this regard. That we error on the side of caution about a particular aspect of abortion in no way diminishes the importance of that aspect. I'd argue it highlights that is the most important factor. Consciousness and self-awareness are the central issues here.
Confirms what I thought. You genuinely believe you only have to think about something for 30 seconds. I used to be like that when I were about 13/14. I outgrew it. You'll learn as you grow up that raw intelligence means very little in terms of understanding. Especially if you assume you know it all before you start to learn.
That was tongue and cheek. I've been thinking about abortion for over a decade now. In fact I was once pro-life, believe it or not. You've not brought up a point I've not disputed at least a dozen times already through the years.
Wonderful sentiment. Of course this applies to many babies. Nothing you've said differentiates a pre-mature baby from a fetus. Certainly not 'self-awareness'.
There is a huge difference between a pre-mature baby that a mother can keep alive outside of the womb and a fetus which cannot survive outside of the womb, central is the brain here, again. And when a child is born within the time frame that abortion is legal it is only kept alive via modern science. And in these cases the mother does have the right to "unplug" it if it has been determined survival is not likely, which is every single time. In fact sometimes it's not even the mother's choice, sometimes insurance and her bank decide it for her. It is rare one born this young will survive at all, even with all the modern science in the world. Let's be clear that you are talking about a near-miracle here.
This was not your argument though. The only situation in which a born baby would need life support but have a 90% chance of being just dandy afterwards is late term problems, far past the point abortion is already illegal in most cases and during the time those parts of the conscious brain are developing, that "grey area" you were talking about.
Which is why I said you were setting up an impossible scenario originally.
Yeah im either one or two. You're right. You have the whole world figured out in your 30 second analysis.
Yes, you either 1. are working with incorrect information, or 2. believe there is something magic about the point of conception.
I don't have the world figured out, but logically these are the only possibilities.
You are free to show otherwise but have not so far.
I disagree. I think that a portion of her check is going toward health insurance, and if they are taking her money she has a right to that coverage.
At least you are not arguing "You're making other people pay for her abortion!" You can't argue with that type of angry mentality no matter how false the entire premise is.
So now that we realize that she is paying and it is a medical procedure, and it is only a matter of what that money she is paying should go toward and what it should not, I think we can come to an agreement somewhere.
Let's pretend she decides she wants that child. It's been nearly a decade, but if I remember right when you work for a company that provides insurance X amount is taken out of your check and there is a big long contract, and some pay more or less and have a few options, but it's about the same price--$15, $20 here and there extra for this and that, but about the same. You would know better than me how that works exactly but that was about right I think.
Then when someone needs to cover family, you're talking like $50, $100 extra right? Something like that per person with some kind of limit?
Here's where I believe we begin to run into problems when we allow insurance to pick and choose what is and what is not covered. She has that kid and she works in the cubicle next to me. I see a doctor once or twice a year including the dentist, she did about the same and we paid about the same. But kids, kids are there like monthly for one thing or another. Well now she's using way more of that lump sum of money than I am, way more than the $100 or so more she's paying.
So how much more do you charge her? Should I be upset her dumb sick kid is always sick?
I don't know.
My world-view is different than yours obviously, and I actually don't mind. I think it's a good thing that when people are in need we pool resources so it costs less. But okay, I get that no everyone sees it that way.
Say I see it as unfair. Say I see it as infringing on my liberty, me paying a portion of my monthly bill to her kid.
Do I then have a justification for encouraging abortion? I'm not even talking legislation, but do you think it is right to make it cost-wise, prohibitive for women to have kids unless they are able to pay the bulk of that healthcare for that kid on their own?
I happen to not, maybe you do maybe you don't,
but the point of that example is that, under the system in which we currently function it would be completely out of the question to encourage abortion based on cost,
why then, functioning under the current system and ignoring whatever overall theory one may have on how it should function, why is it okay to do the opposite?
I do not believe this debate is about costs, or forcing people to pay, those things exist in other areas and no one has a problem. There are no debates about those other things specifically.
I believe that this is a smoke-screen for anti-abortion. Since they are not able to make it illegal the backup plan is making it prohibitive from the angle of cost.
It just happens to fall nicely in line with some libertarian ideologies, which is why I have you ThePyg, and Guitar arguing with me.
But you'd not be if the scenario were the one I laid out I don't believe.
Is it conciousness? If so, then are mentally illed, or people in coma considered as an animal? Is it physical structure? If so, then how do you explain bedridden people and senior citizens?
Bedridden people and senior citizens are self aware.
If you are trying in your simple way to say that "if it is justifiable to abort a fetus for the reason it is not self-aware, then you would need to feel the same about one in a coma is is not self-aware"
You'd at least have a sensible argument, but it is still not the same because that person has the structure for self-awareness, and in most cases is to some degree conscious, even in a deep coma, and a fetus is missing the parts which would make this possible. So it is not the same in that way.
But that is also ignoring the fact that we unplug people all of the time, and we do this based on the will of the individual if they left a will, and if not, it is the will of the family.
So applying your exact example to abortion, it would be the case where it was the will of the mother to "unplug" the one in a coma, if you are making that comparison.
Again though, it is not the same. In a coma you have the stuff that makes consciousness possible, a fetus does not have this.
-The legallity of an action depends upon culture of the state. But there is only one rule for morality And that rule is to be followed by every citizen.
Exactly. Which is why it is immoral for you to try to force your will on others. I'm glad you are now pro-choice.
- History has always made up laws to pretend that a human being is not a human being. They create lies to mask their immorality and separate themselves from their own brothers and fill in the selfish philosophy that they wanted.
Once, it was pointed at small tribes by the empires. Then by the white man to the black man. Now, a mother to her child.
Is that what you wanted me to see?
I'm against everything listed here! Wow, it's nice to have someone who agrees that slavery is wrong and now that you are pro-choice, we agree on almost everything!
- sigh This is just stupid. A person who does not have a sense of value for morality cannot be disputed nor supported.
I know, those immoral people are dumby heads, especially those pro-life psychos with their imaginary fetus friends huh?
- 1. Again with the excuses, can we skip this one? I dont like repeating a statement if it has not originality
Skip what? That the fetus has no feelings or conscious? That's the entire premise. It cannot be skipped. It is the central issue, as you know, you now being pro-choice as you've stated.
2. Abortion was legalized in 1973. And with abortion allowed, everyone believed that the unwanted children and the number of child abuse decrease, right?
I know! It's so annoying when those nutty make-woman-do-what-I-want-because-I-
So annoying and dumb.
I'm glad you at least realize that has nothing to do with why abortion was made legal. And that you also realize that link you sent is a religious looney propoganda piece with 0 basis in reality. It's nice to have someone who gets it on one of these debates.
The legalization of abortion has not only increased crime, it also devalued human life and created a society corrupted of its morals (you can do more research if you want).
lol, I know, that's just the kind of red herring a pro-life person would throw out then not back up with facts. Because they are totally wrong about it! Since there is absolutely no correlation. Great job anticipating a dumb argument someone might make.
It was never pointless to stand up for something that is right. But it is pointless to stand up for self centered reasonings
Exactly. It is important we continue to stand up for women's right to choose because the alternative is more dead women and not a single extra fetus being born, and since that fetus has no feelings it is definitely the choice of the woman. It feels good to stand up for what's right. It's important these anti-abortion crazies aren't ever allowed to force their will on people again.
"A wise man will change his mind, a fool cannot"
-Socrates
Right again. Sad to say those against abortion rarely change their mind. It's a part of their theology in most cases, which is indoctrinated and nearly impossible to shed no matter how clearly we lay out the logic for them.
I would like for you or someone like you to explain to me how charging someone with murder for killing a child in the womb is not a legal recognition of the fact that the child killed is a person.
So now you are back to arguing that abortion is illegal. This is irrelevant to anything I've said. If abortion were illegal, my argument would be the same. Get over the legal/illegal thing. This is not the argument.
Ummmm.
Not everyone who opposes abortion are religious.
P.S. I'm not interested in debating your premise when we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb - a crime of murder.
Good. Go away then. I see every other site you've been trolling got bored of your simple childish arguments and bi-polar inability to stay on topic as well.
Show me where I said anyone was in jail for having a legal abortion.
Your point was that abortion was illegal. It is not. I don't know why you were making that point, but that is the point you were trying to make so I was showing that you were incorrect.
Do children have a right to the equal protections of our laws, David?Do children have a right to the equal protections of our laws, David?
Children do. Foeuses do not.
And you didn't answer my comment about more women dying, you just keep going back to "it's a child it's a child it's a child"
It's not a child. It is legal to have an abortion. Come up with an actual argument or go away.
You want the law to say that a foetus is a person. The law does not say that but you really really really want it to so you just keep saying it over and over like Dorothy trying to go back to Kansas.
I don't care what the law is beyond the fact I'm happy religious nuts like yourself are not able to take society back to the dark ages, beyond that my argument has nothing to do with the current law.
Here's my premise.
A thing which is not capable of feeling, conscious, self-awareness does not qualify for protection reserved for things with feeling, conscious, self-awareness. Since this particular thing that has no conscious is a part of a woman's body, it is her choice, not yours and not mine, what to do with it.
Argue with that or go away. I'm not going to accept that a foetus is a person just because you keep saying it over and over.
Nope. A fetus does not suddenly think "I'm a baby now" a milsecond after the law makes it illegal to abort. Sorry. I know that would be confident for you. Whatever your point of view, there are grey areas here. Clearly you're not interested in exploring them with me.
The grey area is several weeks before the point the sections of the brain which will eventually be self-aware begin to develop. So no, the time where abortion is legal there is clearly no consciousness.
Read this articule on when a baby developes self-awareness: http://www.parentingcounts.org/
Dude, my point is that thing is not self-aware, and your article confirms what I already knew. Did you not read the article you sent? The thing being aborted is not self aware, not even close to self-aware, according to the very article you linked.
Nope not religious therefore cannot have theological views. Again sorry to disappoint, I know it makes it easy for you to think of me as an religious nut.
You believe that some thing with no conscious, no feeling, which does not know the difference one way or another and will not be capable of knowing the difference to any degree for months and months, has the same rights as one who is conscious, even more rights than one who is conscious in many instances.
Nothing logical can lead to this belief. The only reasons to have this ideal are 1. You are dealing with incorrect information. You say you know that thing is not conscious so it cannot be 1. So it is 2. You believe there is something magical about that thing with no conscious. Magic can be "meant to be" it can be "there is a god who wants that kid born" it can be "there is some greater good this child is meant to fulfill" whatever that magic is, it is quite theological.
The assumptions you make mean that you only have to think about your answer for about 30 seconds. I know you probably do this subconsciously but you could get a lot more out of debates if you considered things for a bit longer.
Well in my defense I'm way above average intelligence so I'm used to only having to think about things for about 30 seconds,
here let me give it a few minutes...
Nope. I'm still positive that abortion harms nothing, there is no pre-destiny for the potential child, that nature kills more babies than abortion, and so I, you, and no one else has a right to tell a woman she cannot have this procedure.
For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as “members of the government”) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric.
Well sure. And centuries before that monarchs did, before that tribal leaders, before that clan chiefs, before that we just hit each other over the heads with clubs and didn't bother with rhetoric. But is there more corruption when more people have a say in how and what force is used, and who's will this force is meant to carry out? Clearly humans are better off today, at least those in states where people have a say in who leads them, then in the past. I find most libertarians are really really good at complaining about how horrid the world is, but when one truly looks at the effects their theories would have as a whole on society if carried to their conclusion, is backwards. It's trading slow improvement of societies as a whole because they are sad it's slow, for a giant step backwards where only those with power and money have any influence.
For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it “war”; then ennobled the mass slaughter that “war” involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it “conscription” in the “national service.” For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it “taxation.”
You have a say in all of these things though, is the point. Without government you would not. These things would still happen. Someone would still take your money, and probably more of it and you'd not get benefit like schools and roads from it, there would be war, and probably more of it, the difference is you have a say. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't, but the point is that today the majority of people get most of what they want most of the time. It has not been this way through most of human history, and will cease to be this way if people give up their source of power, which is government in a democratic society.
This is your government.
Well, our government. Ours. We share it... wait, am I interrupting some kind of speech? Wait, did you? Hold on...
Ah shit. You did just copy and paste someone else's words without citation. http://f4fs.org/
You complain against control, and your freedom, and blah blah blah, but you won't even use the freedom you have to come up with your own argument.
So I guess I'll argue with Murray Rothbard, which I'll do happily. I find him to be a whiny douche with no concept of human behavior.
The simple formation of a state automatically forms two distinctive classes.
This is incorrect. Human nature automatically forms classes, several of them in between those with, those without and based on ability. Government does not inherently do this but it does tend to reflect our nature. The difference is that government can when done correctly, give more power and more opportunity to those who otherwise would have none.
The ones who carry the burden of taxation and the ones who recieve the money from those who were affected by taxation.
And in his whiny way what Rothbard fails to realize is that 1. everyone pays taxes. 2. everyone who pays taxes actually gets more back for their money than they invest. Roads, schools, a military to protect us, no billionaire in the world is able to afford all of this all by themselves, much less the people Rothbard is trying to inflame with is "rhetoric." Rothbard may take issue with how some is spent, he can say some should be spent more efficiently, everyone agrees with that, but the idea that he or we are getting nothing for this, or that we are paying more than we are getting out, is not correct.
The government only responds to the mass of the public when the populace discovers a problem. The multitude of ideas is then reduced to typically two major conflicting ideas split between the parties of the state. These ideas are presented to the public and they must decide on the ideas formed by the state which still benefits the state and not the population as a whole.
I do agree with this to an extent. We simplify problems and too often present problems as "either/or,"
But Rothbard is not the first to notice nor are libertarians even more likely to complain about this. If anything looking at the nuance of problems and multiple solutions is the realm of the progressive branch of liberalism, not libertarians, and certainly not the conservatives most libertarian leaders are a front for.
This is far irrelevant to my initial argument and you seem to be using this as a ploy. These statements you are presenting are no where near the nature of my initial response in this debate.
Your original statements or Rothbards? Was that first argument yours? Are we back to your thoughts now?
It is. As above Rothbard complains that "there's only two solutions and things are more complex" more or less, or that there are multiple solutions. Granted he offers no solutions but whatever. You painted a very complex thing, a democratic government, into a very simple thing, a cartoon villain. You are guilty of the very thing the guy you are quoting is complaining about. I point this out with a colorful description involving mustachios and damsels tied to railroad tracks, sure, but it was relevant none the less.
Maybe you're pissed off about Government legislation against personal autonomy,
but libertarians aren't. Libertarians love it from what I've seen. Any time one of them gets the least bit of power they immediately begin casting votes against personal autonomy all over the place. Where are these libertarians who think like you?
The state and government? I am refrering to the state as a whole. A libertarian regards the state as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public.
That's cartoonish, and ridiculous. Governments have made many things possible and many things better.
These opinions vary between libertarian to libertarian. Which I never mentioned in my argument.
Ah, so it's not always an evil aggressor with a handlebar mustachio tying damsels to railroad tracks. If libertarians think someone should be forced to do or believe something then government is okay. It's only when a libertarian doesn't want to do something that it's evil.
That's not nearly as childish and odd as I've always thought the libertarian world view was ._.
Insurance certainly doesn't cover a million things that are preventable.
Thousands than.
The point is they cover preventable things. The only defense for not covering this particular preventable thing is belief that thing "morally wrong." Or in the case of insurance companies, the only reason is anything to make more money for doing less.
The rest is just window dressing.
If you think abortion is evil and wrong, fine, don't get one. If you feel it is your moral duty to force others to believe fairy tales concerning that cluster of cells, fine, join one of those debates.
But currently abortion is legal, it is a medical procedure, therefore it should be covered by medical insurance.
Yes, and most shop for their insurance based on what they find most appropriate to their wants/values.
No, most have insurance through and employer and have no say in what is and is not covered. Most live in areas with 2 or 3 choices at most. Most insurance colludes to carve out these areas to not compete with one another and agree on a framework for coverage. All this does is say that people paying for this insurance now must receive this additional coverage.
Yes. Forcing.
Yes, "forcing insurance that people already have to cover a specific procedure" which is a different argument than forcing people to buy a type of insurance. So you now at least agree on the premise of the argument and will no longer argue the false premise that I'm sure I'll see guitar and prayerfails repeating in different words over and over, in my inbox once I'm done here.
Untrue. If a procedure is forced by insurance companies to be payed for, medical professionals will naturally raise the cost of that procedure since they know all will have to pay for it.
But I guess your solution is to set a pricing cap or something, and then we can argue about economics/inflation/etc.
Considering we pay almost double what any other country pays for the 32nd ranked healthcare, I'm pretty sure there is room for better service along with price cuts. The insurance industry will survive. More importantly more people will get the service that will help them live longer.
That is up to the service providers and the consumers.
It has been and see where it's gotten us.
Both are services appealing to a specific mentality. But at least with cable providers the government hasn't regulated it so much that it costs too much to exist without insurance.
This is not what has happened with insurance. Insurance is more expensive here because we have the least regulation of it of any other country. It is a necessity so companies are able to monopolize while offering worse and worse service and pricing out any upstarts that try to get into the industry.
They don't cover plastic surgery, lipo-suction (i mean, some do, but that's up to the consumer if they wish to get those products or not.)
They do not for vanity, but they do for burn victims, obese when a doctor recommends it, etc. Abortion is not a vanity issue, it's a health issue for one individual up to the third trimester.
Why ideally? This implies the ultimate system of force and healthcare price inflation. And elimination of competition.
If the poor is really the problem, ideally we would have a healthcare voucher program. This boosts competition and decreases price gouging.
No, universal health care ideally gets rid of insurance all together which eliminates the vast majority of health costs. It also ideally would eliminate stock holders, which would eliminate the desire for profits over service.
Doctors can make more. Individuals pay less. Everyone wins except the people who are currently getting rich whilst doing nothing but coming up with reasons not to treat people and ways to keep people unhealthy and in need of expensive care.
Why? Just because YOU like abortions? Not everyone thinks its moral, you know. And is your only real argument that "abortion good, laws must force people to pay for abortion."
I like abortion? In caps?
C'mon now, you're basing too much of your argument on some kind of false consensus. I'm against abortion regulation because I'm against the State enacting legislation to promote morality. This goes both ways.
Abortion is legal. It doesn't matter whether I like it, hate it, like it in caps. You cannot base an argument about coverage on whether you are morally for that thing or against that thing. That question is inconsequential.
- sigh
you do realize that right from the first argument, I had proven that a child is considered alive right at the moment of conception, right?
You said it yourself; You've chosen the point at which you want something to be considered human based on a biological step,just as pro-choice individuals base the point they consider something to be human
Dont deny it.
Mold's alive. I've proven that "alive" is not the benchmark for human.
-Your argument was Can you see that if one does not believe this is special,that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
In short terms, that is exactly your argument. A different perception of being right does not make that perception moral.
And if there is not self-awareness, consciousness, or feeling involved for that thing in question, the foetus, then you have no right to force your belief about what is "moral" onto another.
- Correction: you value creatures who can be useful to the society rather than valuing life itself. How else would you be a pro-choice if you look more at the benefits than the meaning of a living creature? (No offense intended)
Easy, I value life which is conscious and self aware, not random clusters of cells my imagination deems a person. That thing has no feelings, no conscious. If you've ever eaten meet then you've harmed a living thing more than any person who has had an abortion.
- The last person being hurt by those crimes is themselves. How can you say that abortion is harmless when you violated a rule not to kill?
Dont insist that a fetus is not a human when you cannot give a logical excuse. (an excuse for me to dispute)
Because nothing is hurt and nothing is lost.
-1. I will agree, if you can prove to me that murder is moral.Especially when done to helpless children
2. sigh
Are you saying that if you cannot fight atrocity, its a wise decision to just change your perception for what is right and wrong?
1. It's not a child. It's a cluster of cells with no feelings or conscious.
2. No, I said, clearly, laws against abortion don't work anyway, even if there were a reason for them, which there is not. You than said "I DON'T CARE BABIES AND TEDDY BEARS ERRR AND ITS MEANY HEAD TIME SO DO IT ANYWAY" and I said that it does not make sense to do something which does not work, and which in reality causes more death than saves "lives."
Yeah. The role of the state and government in legislating ones theology.
Abortion and gay marriage being theological arguments.
A libertarian who believes a state has the right to legislate concerning abortion and gay marriage then necessarily not only supports government's right to tell people what to do,
they support government's right to tell people who may or may not be religious that they must act as religion dictates.
Do you trust your government and do you have full trust in your government are two completely different questions.
Any government which has some sort of democratic means of election, and so legislation, is not a single entity which can be put in a box and labeled "trustworthy" or "crooked."
I trust that, despite filibustering, attempts to make it harder for people who aren't white and old to vote, and messed up redistricting,
Over time the will of the people is represented correctly through this type of government, and over time the will of the people curves toward a more just and better society.
So yes, I trust government.
And yes I understand that human nature necessitates that some in government will at times act "untrustworthy" and against the better will of the people.
Yeah you are the one that doesn't consider it a child/human.
Why do you insist on repeating this lie? I do consider a child a human. I do not consider a foetus a human however. It is very simple.
Because you said someting doesnt make it law or fact.
Okay...
And who cares about 'holy' or 'pre-ordained' or 'divine'- you are blaming a living being and prosecuting for something out of its control. That is such an injustice.
It's not an injustice. That living thing has no feeling. Abortion is no more unjust than stepping on a bug or spraying a lawn with weed killer. That thing has no more feeling than the bug or the weeds.
And you are not/ shouldn't be the final decider on whether a foetus isn't human or not- you are not the one that is entitled to handing out humanity as if it were some kind of gift.
Neither are you. I can defend the position that something which is not self-aware and which has no feeling and which has not developed a functioning brain should not be treated the same as one which has those things.
Pro-choice is not "forcing" anything. You don't have to get an abortion. More power to you. You are the one who wishes to force your view on others.
THe point of conception isn't magic- as what the debate says the foetus is human. And if it isn't human enlighten me as to what species it is, because it can't not have a classification.
If that point is not magic than there is no reason that thing should be treated special. The only measure left is self-awareness and feeling. Therefore abortion to the point it is currently legal is more than ample to make sure nothing is harmed.
I won't because I would be killing someone for something out of it's control.
No, you won't because you mistakenly believe something which is not a person is a person. Which is your right and no one cares if you do that. The problem is when you demand that others take your view on this matter. Your view is provably wrong, therefore no one should be forced to follow your view.
And anyone who doesn't consider the foetus to be human only does that so they can kill it whenever it becomes an inconvenience to them.
Your ideal of when and how one comes to the decision to abort is childish and simple. You do not know what that person is thinking at all. And it does not matter because you are not them and should not be allowed to legislate their decision based on your superstitious beliefs.
You'll have to provide some supporting evidence for people in prison for having a legal abortion, I don't believe that to be true.
Regardless, it does not change the argument. The point at which abortion is legal, that thing has no feeling or self-awareness, and so nothing is being harmed.
It's hilarious (and disturbing) that you see the Unborn Victims of Violence act as barbaric, evil and stupid.... but abortion on demand as anything less.
Of course it is. Outlawing abortion does not lower the number of abortions, it forces women to seek out abortions in unsanitary conditions where they are more likely to die during the procedure and it incriminates women who are seeking a procedure that hurts no one.
It is a theological witch hunt based on superstition which leads only to more death and more misery in the world without saving a single person.
It is barbaric, stupid, and evil.
If you pay for an insurance plan that doesn't include abortion why should the "insurance people" be forced to cover abortion? Now if you want to force abortion coverage onto every plan, then you are also forcing the cost of abortion coverage onto every plan.
Because the person who is getting an abortion is "forced" to pay for other people's prostate cancer treatment, or their prescription for anti-depressants, or their physical therapy after a car wreck, etc. All of which are more expensive than coverage for abortion when taken as a whole.
Does their plan include abortion coverage? No? Then they aren't already paying for it, you're just making it mandatory that all plans cover abortions, thus, making it mandatory that all customers pay for abortion coverage. If someone wishes to not pay for abortion coverage for whatever reason, that is between them and the insurance company, not the government.
As we see, leaving insurance up to insurance companies leads to the most expensive health coverage in the world and the 32nd ranked service in the world. It is a piss poor system. You either need to force insurance to cover health costs and regulate pricing, or you need to get rid of health insurance and implement universal healthcare. Otherwise, as we see, health insurance finds reasons to charge more and cover less.
Its very simple: You force the cost of abortion coverage for all females on the insurance company, the insurance company the forces the cost of abortion coverage on to all females.
It's very simple: You force the cost of cancer treatment for all people covered who get cancer on the insurance company, the insurance company forces the cost of cancer treatment on all people.
Same thing.
Again, if your force the insurance to cover abortions, then the insurance will force their customers to pay for it.
Unless you put laws in place which force insurance companies to spend at least 80% of profits on healthcare, which is in place. In that case insurance rates will still go down for everyone, even whilst making them provide the services they are paid to provide.
And health insurance continues to reign as the 3rd most profitable industry in the world, only after oil and drugs. Everyone wins.
It's controllable as in you can control the actions which lead to the broken leg.
You are saying that abortion is controllable as in you can control the factors which lead to pregnancy.
So yes, the analogy is correct.
Your argument is that one should not have to pay for whatever portion of insurance goes toward fixing a broken leg if one does not anticipate, or is somehow incapable of getting, a broken leg.
It is the same argument. So is a cold contracted from not washing hands. So is food poisoning contracted from not washing vegetables. There are a million things insurance covers which can be prevented.
What insurance covers is in all contracts whether group or individual.
And this is a portion of that contract. You are trying to treat abortion special, you are trying to treat it as a different thing than all other healthcare matters. It is not. It is a healthcare matter.
You can bold "murder" and "child" all you want, abortion is still not murdering a child. And the Unborn Victims of Violence act will be overturned because it is barbaric, evil, and stupid, whether planned parenthood is the one who does it or not is inconsequential.
And do you have any idea how many thousands of living women planned parenthood saves every year?
Why do those who spend so much effort trying to save their imagination so hate groups that save actual living people?
Cancer and pregnancy are very different! One is a disease, and the other is caused by sex and is natural! It's apples and oranges!
Okay then, as I've pointed out to everyone else. A broken leg. That's as preventable as an abortion, just be more careful, or don't walk around. This is about what insurance people pay for should cover. Abortion is a medical procedure, it should be covered under medical insurance.
Not to mention,
Ah, but you're going to anyway...
paying for abortions violates religious freedoms,
No it doesn't. You don't have to get an abortion just like you don't have to treat cancer, or have a broken leg set. If you are against it don't do it.
You can't really claim that its the same logic when cancer and abortion are two very different things. An abortion is what comes after a pregnancy and a pregnancy is a controllable factor for the most part. Cancer on the other hand is not for the most part, sure, sticking you're head in the microwave and chain smoking may cause certain kinds of cancer, but it is still largely an uncontrollable factor.
There are thousands of diseases and injuries which are as controllable (or more controllable in the case of rape) than pregnancy. And the insurance people pay for covers these things. There is no reason the insurance people already pay for could not also cover this medical procedure.
Why should a non-sexually active women be forced to pay for abortion insurance?
It is the same insurance. It is an additional service that insurance people already pay for would now cover. This is the cancer/broken/leg etc. argument. If I'm an amputee and have health insurance through a company, and that insurance covers broken legs, no one has ever argued that the amputee should get the "broken leg" discount.
Why should any women be forced to pay for abortion service for that matter?
They shouldn't be if they are insured. Insurance should cover it. Glad you've come around.
I thought you were a feminist, you know, the old idea that women are strong, independent and capable of running their own lives (which they certainly can), so why are you telling them what to do in the insurance market?
If that is the definition of feminist, then sure I'm one. Don't tell them..
But it is about forcing insurance to cover a procedure, again.
... well maybe not "science" fiction but certainly "fiction."
So is it the "science" part specifically you dispute? I don't know. If there were a religion which actually supported science to some degree (scientology does not of course) I would think that would be a step forward.
Apparently, your brain can't distinguish between uncontrollable and controllable factors in life.
Okay, a broken leg then. You should be against insurance covering broken legs because that is controllable. Why make insurance cover anything? Why not just send them a check every month and pay for all healthcare ourselves?
This is about making insurance use the money people already give them for the healthcare they are supposed to be covering. It is about what insurance covers.
Purchase of insurance is a voluntary exchange of a person who wants to be insured payment for an incident and a service that can offer that payment, so long as the person subscribes to monthly payments with or without needed service.
That is the point.
Not even close to the point. The point is what medical procedures are covered by insurance companies and which are not. It is about forcing insurance that people already have to cover a specific procedure. It is no different than saying an insurance company must cover removal of a spleen, outside of the superstitions surrounding abortion specifically.
When legislation forces people to purchase insurance, they are merely increasing profit for a company that provides a service.
Unless people decide they want medical treatment when needed, insured or not. Which no surprisingly they do. In that case the more people who are insured the less expensive it is for everyone, whether they need an abortion or not, whether they need a kidney removed or not.
Many people don't get abortions, so many people don't wish to purchase insurance for an abortion. Not to mention there are many options for when you get pregnant, and one can choose accordingly based on what they want. So abortion insurance is not high in demand.
Do more people get abortions then say typhoid fever? So perhaps only the flu and colds should be covered? I mean, by comparison nothing is really in high demand.
most people, though, are willing to do a lot to keep themselves from dying from cancer. This is why insurance that covers cancer patients is in high demand. It is profitable for insurance companies to offer coverage for cancer patients because most people would be willing to pay for that type of insurance.
Same argument is above. Health insurance covers many things specifically because any one thing is not in high enough demand to be "profitable." It is a matter of what insurance is forced to cover and what they are not, it is not a matter of picking and choosing which cable channels you want.
However, with most companies not profiting from abortion insurance, it greatly benefits them when the government forces people to purchase abortion insurance. Also, abortions aren't even expensive enough to really justify subscribing to abortion insurance for a long time unless it came as part of a plan.
If one is already paying for health insurance, why should that health insurance get to choose not to cover specific things? This is not about more profits for health insurance, it is about health insurance actually using the money people give them to provide health care, whatever that care should happen to be.
It makes no economic sense to force people to buy abortion insurance. And more importantly, I'd see this as coercive acts of government forcing a populace to give their money to a company. I don't even see how anyone benefits from this EXCEPT for the insurance companies...
Well, ideally we'd have universal healthcare. It would cost less for everyone and be more efficient. But since we do not, forcing insurance companies to use the money people are giving them anyway, for the healthcare, is the only sensible thing to do.
It's the same argument.
You want a thing which is not a child to be considered a child.
I think that is ridiculous.
There is nothing "holy" or "divine" or "pre-ordained" about the point of conception.
If there is nothing special about this point then by what measure do we determine others may do as they please with some thing which has no feeling?
I say it is the point at which that thing has feeling (well before actually, according to all abortion law.)
You say "no no no no! No matter what you say point of conception is magic!"
Okay. Don't have an abortion.
Don't expect others to feel like that point is magical though.
- My argument stands that life starts at conception. if you cannot accept my philosophy, then your answer is something for me to dispute
So your answer is that you refuse to answer the question "But if one does not believe that the point at which this DNA is created by the combination of the sperm and the egg is in any way special, by what measure should they judge the sanctity of this life?"
I will assume then you do not have an argument to support your position. In which case, as is currently the case, you should support others right to have an abortion, and they will continue to support your right to not have an abortion.
I'm assuming this is now your position.
- Same argument once more; Legal isn't always Moral
Legality was not my argument... if you cannot understand what I'm saying you don't have to pretend you do. Just tell me you don't get it.
- Simple answer: I value life
Our value for life defines our community
I value life. Just about everyone values life. There is a very good argument to be made that those who are pro-choice value life more than those who are anti-abortion. So you've not answered the question.
- Same excuse can be said to Cheating, Bribery, Drug and alcohol abuse. no one is hurt nor forced to act against their will. But why does it feel so wrong?
Wait... I'm I arguing with a child?
Cheating, bribery, drugs and alcohol abuse all hurt someone. Abortion does not. At the point abortion is legal t here is not person there to hurt. They are not the same thing. And "feeling" has nothing to do with anything at all.
- My friend, that is the excuse of the lowlifes. The ineffectiveness of the solution is not an excuse to allow immorality to run about
1. There is nothing immoral about abortion and you've not had a single argument to the contrary.
2. The ineffectiveness of a solution is an excuse not to enact that "solution". Otherwise you have a bunch of solutions that don't work... like outlawing abortion.
I mean, the second one was just ridiculous. Really? Do stuff even if it doesn't work because people are "bad"?
Fact: Abortion is the murder of a helpless child.
You are incorrect as I've explained.
The brain isn't working so it is as good as non-existent one. Just like if you had a car that wasn't working it would have been good as not having a car at all (or better because the billing you would get to fix it would be way high) because you would have to still find an alternative to get to work.
No, another incorrect comparison. The correct comparison is a car that was never built to begin with. The correct comparison is scraps of metal in a warehouse somewhere that have yet to be even shipped to their various plants for assembly.
How is that more interesting than this? It is a direct correlation between a living baby who is as brain dead and unaware-like a fetus. Which deserves to live and which deserves to die?
It is more interesting because it deals with an actual person and not someone's imagination. This scenario is more like the car that has broken down. And again, I answered that moral dilemma. Why is it so hard to read my arguments for those who disagree with me? You are the second to completely skip that part of my argument.
The only difference is that the born child is heavier, more tangible and therefore we can sympathize for it more. But everything else is the same, right down to the brain that isn't working (which is as good as you not having one in the first place).
If that were the original argument then my argument would have been there is no moral obligation to keep that child alive. I would have also pointed out the impossibility of that scenario. A baby born in what would be for all intents and purposes, a fetus outside of the womb, cannot survive with full brain function. It is a different debate than what was laid out.
That was not the argument though. This argument was making the false comparison between a non-existent human, and one who was self-aware and who would be cured. It was comparing an imaginary friend to a human who happened to be in a coma. It is not the same thing.
I think your compartmentalizing in order to keep your morality in check.
No. What I'm doing is not comparing a born child to the theological ideal of a fetus. You want a born child with brain damage who can be healed to be the same as an unborn child who has not yet developed the parts of the brain that are self-aware because that is in line with your beliefs. Your belief is incorrect. They are not the same and the reasons for my opinion on the morality of this issue are crystal clear and the obvious ones once that cloud of superstitious theological rubbish are removed.
No false comparison was made. You are the one trying to put the two arguments in different 'dimensions' in order to
Yes, the original argument is a false comparison and since that false comparison there have been several others, mostly repeating the "brain dead" vs. unborn argument in different wording sprinkled with car comparisons etc. All false comparisons.
So yeah, "cue the confused anti-abortion people trying to make false comparisons I've already dispelled" was exactly correct. It's like I'm Nostradamus.
