Yes, you're a psychopath. If you're implying that "no one would feel sad if they were dead" is a justification for killing someone, then you're a psychopath. Morality is not, and should not, be based on how sad or happy a decision makes us feel.
To be clear, you’re saying that you would be equally as impacted by the death of five year old child as you would by the ejection of an embryo in early development?
Or do you not understand that we’re not saying, “it’s ok to kill this one because we don’t feel bad about it” it’s that, “we don’t feel the same about an embryo as we do a full term baby or child because we recognize that there’s a significant difference between the first and the latter two.”
I'm not saying that I would be equally emotionally affected, I'm saying that my emotions in that situation are irrelevant. I would be more sad if one of my parents got murdered than if some person I've never met was murdered. There's a significant difference between those two people - does that make the murder of my parents any more "wrong?" No of course not. Judging someone's worthiness of life based on your own subjective emotions alone is absolutely wrong on so many levels. Again, this just proves my point that the pro-abortionist's moral judgement is just based on their feelings. As has been shown throughout history, that's a horrible precedent.
Every abortion law includes an exception for mothers in life-threatening danger. That's not even a controversial question.
Well, feel free to give an answer rather than dodging it.
Not exactly a “gotcha” for those of us man enough to admit there are two lives involved. It’s a classic “life raft” scenario, and we give precedence to the mother.
After two years of leftist authoritarian freaks telling me what to do to my body and when, it is like sweet revenge to see them sweat like this (I am pro-choice in ALL cases of medical treatments, not just when it suits a political agenda).
After two years of leftist authoritarian freaks telling me what to do to my body and when, it is like sweet revenge to see them sweat like this (I am pro-choice in ALL cases of medical treatments, not just when it suits a political agenda).
Any demarcation after conception (i.e. fertilization) is arbitrary since there's no one defining characteristic of being a human or "alive." This same process of arbitrarily defining who gets to be considered a human worthy of life is exactly what lead to the justification of the murder and slavery of millions during human history - i.e. black people aren't human/they're subhuman because xyz therefor we get to kill and enslave them. I don't think this arbitrary demarcation is really based on rationality, it's all post-hoc reasoning. Meaning, because these babies are an inconvenience to people, people are motivated to find reasons to rationalize why they should be able to kill them.
You eat meat, how do you justify slaughtering of animals with higher cognitive abilities and ability to feel pain than a fertilized egg?
Are you going to ignore this question because it is inconvenient?
Because there is no registration process and people can post under many different names, they are free to amplify a few voices as if it were many.
Sorry but one name per topic
It can be done. It is also very common here for someone to post over and over again to drown out the voices of others by burying their posts to previous pages that are much less likely to be read.
Then the moderators come along and delete posts by liberals, but leave inflammatory posts by conservatives.
This is why it seems like most on LR are conservative / right wing political activists when it is really a small group, but LR moderators are some of them.
It can be done. It is also very common here for someone to post over and over again to drown out the voices of others by burying their posts to previous pages that are much less likely to be read.
Then the moderators come along and delete posts by liberals, but leave inflammatory posts by conservatives.
This is why it seems like most on LR are conservative / right wing political activists when it is really a small group, but LR moderators are some of them.
The problem here is liberals find simply being disagreed with "inflammatory".
It can be done. It is also very common here for someone to post over and over again to drown out the voices of others by burying their posts to previous pages that are much less likely to be read.
Then the moderators come along and delete posts by liberals, but leave inflammatory posts by conservatives.
This is why it seems like most on LR are conservative / right wing political activists when it is really a small group, but LR moderators are some of them.
The problem here is liberals find simply being disagreed with "inflammatory".
To be clear, you’re saying that you would be equally as impacted by the death of five year old child as you would by the ejection of an embryo in early development?
Or do you not understand that we’re not saying, “it’s ok to kill this one because we don’t feel bad about it” it’s that, “we don’t feel the same about an embryo as we do a full term baby or child because we recognize that there’s a significant difference between the first and the latter two.”
I'm not saying that I would be equally emotionally affected, I'm saying that my emotions in that situation are irrelevant. I would be more sad if one of my parents got murdered than if some person I've never met was murdered. There's a significant difference between those two people - does that make the murder of my parents any more "wrong?" No of course not. Judging someone's worthiness of life based on your own subjective emotions alone is absolutely wrong on so many levels. Again, this just proves my point that the pro-abortionist's moral judgement is just based on their feelings. As has been shown throughout history, that's a horrible precedent.
You’re looking at this in reverse. I’m not determining worthiness of life based on how I feel about them. I’m against capital punishment, and many of those guilty ones genuinely don’t deserve to live. My level of interest in them isn’t determining my opinion on their right to be alive.
My question is: is this a person, capable of a sense of self, or is it not? That is why someone who’s zygote fails to attach or has their embryo fail to develop beyond the first few weeks isn’t going to feel the same as someone who has a child die.
And that’s not to say if you know someone who suffers a traumatic brain injury and then is brain dead that there’s no grief in pulling the plug. Of course there is, because they were a person with a sense of self and an identity.
In the case of an early term abortion or natural termination of the pregnancy, we aren’t dealing with a fully formed person with the capability of that sense of self that distinguishes people.
Not every. There are nine countries that ban all abortions without any exceptions at all.
Marrying goats is legal in like 20 countries. How is that relevant to US law?
List them.
The other poster wrote that every law against abortion contains an exception for the health of the mother. That’s not true. If they meant American law, they didn’t include that qualifier. The fact is that there are people outside of the United States.
Well, feel free to give an answer rather than dodging it.
Not exactly a “gotcha” for those of us man enough to admit there are two lives involved. It’s a classic “life raft” scenario, and we give precedence to the mother.
A Sudanese man who married a goat was in mourning today after his wife died when she swallowed a plastic bag. Charles Tombe shot to fame last year when he tied the knot with Rose
People have sex for pleasure. That's not going away, and we shouldn't judge people for how they choose to live (US government for example cannot force everyone to go to church on Sunday). We've tried legistlating Alcohol use before for moral reasons and that DID NOT go well. Birth control can fail, even planned pregnancies need access to abortion services sometimes because not everything works out perfectly all the time. The best option would be prevention, but it does not always work, and so yes, access to abortion services is needed.
Even the reddest of states allow for abortion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
The disparity is the evangelicals who think life begins when you zipper goes down and the leftists who think full term abortion is constitutional right.
Incorrect, currently there is a Texas "heartbeat" law that bans ALL types of abortions after 6 weeks, no matter the circumstances. Other states are also following suite. This is just WRONG.
