Yeah, killing somebody and letting them die when it’s completely possible to save them and you just choose not to is not much different ethically speaking. Result is the same. Intentions are close to identical.
I’m guessing you will see no difference between saving a random person’s life and your own born or unborn child’s if forced into a choice.
Nobody cares about your personal principles and credulity-stretching equivalences. The law of the land determines that and the people as a whole, not just you, determine law.
Who is suggesting this is an either-or? You’re implying the person carrying the fetus has a responsibility to it that you don’t have to an unknown person who also needs a part of your body to live.
I feel like you make the distinction because you assume the first chose to do something to create that fetus while you have made no act to contribute to the creation the stranger in renal failure.
I want to know why that’s important to the anti-abortion people. I hear from them that abortion is wrong because it’s murder, but this really seems like it’s about making someone own up to consequences. The woman who wasn’t raped is forced to carry the child to term because she chose to have sex. The woman who was violated can end the new life inside her because she didn’t choose to have sex.
If that’s the case, then this isn’t about murder or not murder.
To everyone making this out to be a men against women thing, and that really is the prevailing theme around the country in reaction and discussion from those opposed to the SCOTUS ruling, I just want to point out that there are millions of pro-life women in the US of all races and ethnicities, and one of the 5 Justices in the majority is a woman.
It's a really bad argument by the pro-choice movement. It just has so little factual or logical support -- the claim that there are tens of millions of men out there pondering amongst themselves how to oppress women, and they came up with the idea of uniting to ban abortion as a means to do that? WTF? When you present arguments that basically defy common sense and reality, it hurts rather than helps the cause.
Great point. If anything, legalized abortion would help men out way more than it being illegal. Less child-support, less commitment, more easy women. The people who believe that men actually want to enslave women as baby-factories have been watching too much Handmaid's Tale. In reality, there are far more men men would rather pump-and-dump as many women as possible without wearing condoms or having commitment than men who want to oppress women by giving them unwanted pregnancies.
Is a human zygote as much a person as a newborn child?
My personal opinion on that is of negligible importance as is the SCOTUS’ for that matter (as SCOTUS itself conceded last week) or “Dr. Wise Old Man’s” or any shrill BS artist on this forum. As I said before, the people as a whole determine that through representative democracy. Repeating for your benefit coz you seem slow in reading comprehension:
”The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.”
I can imagine Yawn or a person with religious beliefs understandably disagreeing with the state’s authority above (although he is actually pleased with the recent scotus-to-state transfer of regulatory power), but all the pro-choice blatherers can’t possibly disagree unless they are literally advocating for abortion rights at 40 weeks right up until the baby starts breathing? As decided by unelected “experts”??
That’s all very good. However, as has been noted here, the current state of our representative democracy is not adequately executing the will of its people, especially on this question.
Why would that have any bearing on the worthiness of a life to be saved?
The only consistent pro-lifers are the ones who say that abortion is murder all the time. I think it’s ludicrous, but it’s consistent.
The ones who claim it’s murder but that it’s permissible when the woman didn’t choose to have sex make it clear that this isn’t a question or murder but one of punishment.
All the “except in cases of rape or incest” types wouldn’t be for killing a newborn created out of rape or incest and yet they accept “murdering” the child created by rape or incest at an early stage of development because like everyone else, they understand an early stage embryo is not yet a person.
…and I’ve said multiple times I’m for zero abortions. I can’t be anymore consistent. i tried answering your silly question and you ignored the answer because it was convenient to do so.
As we said multiple times, in your silly scenario, you most likely chose to have the human depending on your uterus; you did not choose to make the guy’s kidney fail. Checkmate.
Why would that have any bearing on the worthiness of a life to be saved?
The only consistent pro-lifers are the ones who say that abortion is murder all the time. I think it’s ludicrous, but it’s consistent.
The ones who claim it’s murder but that it’s permissible when the woman didn’t choose to have sex make it clear that this isn’t a question or murder but one of punishment.
All the “except in cases of rape or incest” types wouldn’t be for killing a newborn created out of rape or incest and yet they accept “murdering” the child created by rape or incest at an early stage of development because like everyone else, they understand an early stage embryo is not yet a person.
Yes, pro-life absolutism is certainly a morally and intellectually defensible position. If you mock them, you will pay the price at polling booths.
I have also explained with multiple examples of the principle of not-at-fault in tort as well as criminal law in previous posts. Bringing a father-absent child into being that was conceived without the mother’s consent has a greater societal cost than the termination of early life. This nuance may be above your comprehension level, and if so, you are welcome to think fast-forward on behalf of pro-lifers and advocate for no exceptions even for rape/incest for the sake of your purity of moral principle.
My personal opinion on that is of negligible importance as is the SCOTUS’ for that matter (as SCOTUS itself conceded last week) or “Dr. Wise Old Man’s” or any shrill BS artist on this forum. As I said before, the people as a whole determine that through representative democracy. Repeating for your benefit coz you seem slow in reading comprehension:
”The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.”
I can imagine Yawn or a person with religious beliefs understandably disagreeing with the state’s authority above (although he is actually pleased with the recent scotus-to-state transfer of regulatory power), but all the pro-choice blatherers can’t possibly disagree unless they are literally advocating for abortion rights at 40 weeks right up until the baby starts breathing? As decided by unelected “experts”??
That’s all very good. However, as has been noted here, the current state of our representative democracy is not adequately executing the will of its people, especially on this question.
How convenient a grandiose bloviation. Reality disagrees with you. We are where we are through representative democracy. Scotus took an important step towards representative democracy last week. Judiciary is one level less representative than the Legislative.
The effectiveness of contraception is stated in terms of usage for 1 year. Thus, if an 18 year old male relies on a condom (which is ~ 80% effective for 1 year) then the effectiveness over 4 years of college, is then calculated as 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 = 0.41. In other words, after 4 years, it's 41% likely to prevent pregnancy and 1-0.41 = 0.59 or 59% probability of pregnancy occurring.
The effectiveness of other forms mentioned, such as birth control are similarly calculated. For the pill ~ 90% effectiveness over 1 year, it would be 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.66. Or, ~ 66% effective and 34% probability of pregnancy occurring.
For women, who spend approximately 25 years of their life with an ability to get pregnant, that would translate to an effectiveness of ~ 7% — if she used contraception. In other words, that would be 93% probability of getting pregnant, despite 25 years of precautions.
In other words, you have no idea how probability works...
The only significant element of this statistic is that it CAN happen.
Perfect, you just agreed with my position that the issue of abortion is a couple’s issue, not just a woman’s issue.
Take all the stuff about incels and your other bizarre attributions and go jump off a bridge.
If men could share the burden of pregnancy - I would agree.
I am sorry I am upsetting you. I should have been more delicate. I still stand by my assumptions. They way you speak about women is extremely telling. How old are you?
I would have thought that people like bluh would want to ban women jumping off bridges, just in case they are capable of having a child they can get their hands on.
I would have thought that people like bluh would want to ban women jumping off bridges, just in case they are capable of having a child they can get their hands on.
Non-sequitorial blather. I take it you are trying very hard to sound witty and mock my position on the importance of fathers.
You should change your label to Lack of Stare Penises.
I’m guessing you will see no difference between saving a random person’s life and your own born or unborn child’s if forced into a choice.
Nobody cares about your personal principles and credulity-stretching equivalences. The law of the land determines that and the people as a whole, not just you, determine law.
Who is suggesting this is an either-or? You’re implying the person carrying the fetus has a responsibility to it that you don’t have to an unknown person who also needs a part of your body to live.
I feel like you make the distinction because you assume the first chose to do something to create that fetus while you have made no act to contribute to the creation the stranger in renal failure.
I want to know why that’s important to the anti-abortion people. I hear from them that abortion is wrong because it’s murder, but this really seems like it’s about making someone own up to consequences. The woman who wasn’t raped is forced to carry the child to term because she chose to have sex. The woman who was violated can end the new life inside her because she didn’t choose to have sex.
If that’s the case, then this isn’t about murder or not murder.
Someone already made the point that people might feel bad and sympathize with rape victims and thus would be more supportive of abortion in that case. You're right, that doesn't logically make sense if you believe that abortion is murder and that's because it's based on emotion and not logic. That also doesn't mean that everybody who's only for abortion in the case of rape/incest just wants to punish women.
Is a human zygote as much a person as a newborn child?
My personal opinion on that is of negligible importance as is the SCOTUS’ for that matter (as SCOTUS itself conceded last week) or “Dr. Wise Old Man’s” or any shrill BS artist on this forum. As I said before, the people as a whole determine that through representative democracy. Repeating for your benefit coz you seem slow in reading comprehension:
”The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.”
I can imagine Yawn or a person with religious beliefs understandably disagreeing with the state’s authority above (although he is actually pleased with the recent scotus-to-state transfer of regulatory power), but all the pro-choice blatherers can’t possibly disagree unless they are literally advocating for abortion rights at 40 weeks right up until the baby starts breathing? As decided by unelected “experts”??
State have always been free to define when a fetus becomes viable and is thus "life" that must be protected by restricting abortion. But it turns out that women are involved in this (remember them?). And for about 50 years, our constitutional law actually gave a sh$t about women and held that the state's ability to regulate had to be balanced against a woman's right to privacy. That right of privacy is perhaps the most essential right that we have under our constitution in that it recognizes that there are certain parts of our lives where the government simply cannot go. When you take that right away from women, you then make all women subjects of the state in that through the political process women are legally forced to conceive children, even in the case of rape or incest and even if death or severe injury is likely if the woman is forced to conceive. And this will mean that women in states that have banned all abortion will be imprisoned and forced to conceive if they are caught trying to obtain an abortion. But many women will just die after going to an underground abortion provider.
So, while you think you have check and mate with your reductivist theory about the state determining life and your little missive about abortion moments before contractions begin, you have actually highlighted the fact that the state's regulatory power is actually being used to enslave women to being birthing vessels with no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term. Even if the "woman" is 12 years old and was raped by her father.
Like every other pro-lifer embarrassed to admit they have no issue punishing women for political team sports (for various unsavory reasons), you don't actually spell out your positions. You claim to take main issue with late-term abortions and don't mind commonsense laws, but you openly cheer Roe being overturnedbasically because you think the legal reasoning was poor 50 years ago. So you expressly avoid having to make any statements about what you actually think about abortion, instead operating on some more abstract claims about legal doctrine, etc.
This is all fine and academic and reasonably thoughtful if we lived in fantasy land. Except, you ignore and then nonchalantly dismiss any women-specific concerns across this whole arc. You dismiss the risks and burdens of pregnancy, you ignore or discard the already-present radical changes to abortion laws far in excess of what most of America deems reasonable, you downplay disenfranchised women already being prosecuted for innocent pregnancy complications.
You basically do everything you can to avoid acknowledging that women are going to suffer immediately in the post-Roe world. It's possible to agree that Roe was bad legal reasoning but that the immediate effects to women and the general idea of overruling precedent to remove rights from people is very, very bad. You can't bring yourself to do that. You have to dismiss or downplay every negative argument against Roe being repealed.
That's a sure sign of someone who has a much more radically conservative view about abortion, trending into 'actively hostile to women' but is embarrassed to admit. My accusations are not dishonest or vacuous. I'm just disappointed in posters who try to hide their embrace of radical, harmful positions behind distractions and abstractions. Just own it.
Dude, you’ve totally gone off the rails now. Saying random things about me for which you have no basis and contradict what I’ve written. Can’t help your ilk coz you seem mentally ill.
I’ve plentifully and very clearly spelled out both my position and the philosophical justifications underpinning them, and they are internally consistent. I have also acknowledged the suffering of women post-Roe and quantified the limited extent of it in practice.
Don’t come after me if you don’t care to read what I’ve written and engage in an honest discussion. Don’t talk generics and virtue signaling blabber. Be specific in challenging any position of mine, and first take the time to ascertain the position itself.
You are the quintessential example of what conservatives blame liberals for, why I long stopped identifying with the liberal label. Too shrill, not oriented in pragmatics, and caricaturing people with morally and intellectually honestly held belief systems.
You haven't spelled out your position at all besides vague moralistic hemming-and-hawing, complete dismissal of any drawbacks of the Roe overturning, open disparagement of maternal risk, over-focus on judicial doctrine (a classic fallback), and, oh yeah, repeated assertions that you have been clear.
At the end of the day, you end up just where all the other closet radical conservatives go: call the other side a shrill liberal. I guess I should have seen that coming. Far easier than actually grappling with your cognitive dissonance -- The repeal of Roe is hurting women and you are OK with that. That is objectively immoral and greatly threatens your self image. I don't envy the internal struggle.
Why would that have any bearing on the worthiness of a life to be saved?
The only consistent pro-lifers are the ones who say that abortion is murder all the time. I think it’s ludicrous, but it’s consistent.
The ones who claim it’s murder but that it’s permissible when the woman didn’t choose to have sex make it clear that this isn’t a question or murder but one of punishment.
All the “except in cases of rape or incest” types wouldn’t be for killing a newborn created out of rape or incest and yet they accept “murdering” the child created by rape or incest at an early stage of development because like everyone else, they understand an early stage embryo is not yet a person.
Yes, pro-life absolutism is certainly a morally and intellectually defensible position. If you mock them, you will pay the price at polling booths.
I have also explained with multiple examples of the principle of not-at-fault in tort as well as criminal law in previous posts. Bringing a father-absent child into being that was conceived without the mother’s consent has a greater societal cost than the termination of early life. This nuance may be above your comprehension level, and if so, you are welcome to think fast-forward on behalf of pro-lifers and advocate for no exceptions even for rape/incest for the sake of your purity of moral principle.
Do you want to have a discussion? Don’t act like I don’t read about this subject or the differing view points or science involved. I’m trying to understand a point of view that’s different from my own, and I hope you’re interested in the same.
In the above highlighted portion, you concede that there are are situations where an abortion is acceptable. We both agree that infanticide in the same scenario (rape, incest) would never be acceptable. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I would say that you view the personhood of the newborn differently than the early stage pregnancy.
Who is suggesting this is an either-or? You’re implying the person carrying the fetus has a responsibility to it that you don’t have to an unknown person who also needs a part of your body to live.
I feel like you make the distinction because you assume the first chose to do something to create that fetus while you have made no act to contribute to the creation the stranger in renal failure.
I want to know why that’s important to the anti-abortion people. I hear from them that abortion is wrong because it’s murder, but this really seems like it’s about making someone own up to consequences. The woman who wasn’t raped is forced to carry the child to term because she chose to have sex. The woman who was violated can end the new life inside her because she didn’t choose to have sex.
If that’s the case, then this isn’t about murder or not murder.
Someone already made the point that people might feel bad and sympathize with rape victims and thus would be more supportive of abortion in that case. You're right, that doesn't logically make sense if you believe that abortion is murder and that's because it's based on emotion and not logic. That also doesn't mean that everybody who's only for abortion in the case of rape/incest just wants to punish women.
Saying that making a woman carry a pregnancy to term is a punishment is the exact same thing as saying having a child is a punishment, yet practically all women and men endure this punishment as a course of life because it is as much a joy as it is a burden. If a couple really really doesn’t want to bear the costs of parenting and it’s too late, they can choose to give the child away and the state will do what it can to provide shelter to the unwanted child.
The state is acting per its duty to protect life, especially prevent death by agency.
Dude, you’ve totally gone off the rails now. Saying random things about me for which you have no basis and contradict what I’ve written. Can’t help your ilk coz you seem mentally ill.
I’ve plentifully and very clearly spelled out both my position and the philosophical justifications underpinning them, and they are internally consistent. I have also acknowledged the suffering of women post-Roe and quantified the limited extent of it in practice.
Don’t come after me if you don’t care to read what I’ve written and engage in an honest discussion. Don’t talk generics and virtue signaling blabber. Be specific in challenging any position of mine, and first take the time to ascertain the position itself.
You are the quintessential example of what conservatives blame liberals for, why I long stopped identifying with the liberal label. Too shrill, not oriented in pragmatics, and caricaturing people with morally and intellectually honestly held belief systems.
You haven't spelled out your position at all besides vague moralistic hemming-and-hawing, complete dismissal of any drawbacks of the Roe overturning, open disparagement of maternal risk, over-focus on judicial doctrine (a classic fallback), and, oh yeah, repeated assertions that you have been clear.
At the end of the day, you end up just where all the other closet radical conservatives go: call the other side a shrill liberal. I guess I should have seen that coming. Far easier than actually grappling with your cognitive dissonance -- The repeal of Roe is hurting women and you are OK with that. That is objectively immoral and greatly threatens your self image. I don't envy the internal struggle.
I already responded to this silliness yesterday and the day before. Go jump. And acquire browser search (find on page) and reading comprehension skills and then come back.
Who is suggesting this is an either-or? You’re implying the person carrying the fetus has a responsibility to it that you don’t have to an unknown person who also needs a part of your body to live.
I feel like you make the distinction because you assume the first chose to do something to create that fetus while you have made no act to contribute to the creation the stranger in renal failure.
I want to know why that’s important to the anti-abortion people. I hear from them that abortion is wrong because it’s murder, but this really seems like it’s about making someone own up to consequences. The woman who wasn’t raped is forced to carry the child to term because she chose to have sex. The woman who was violated can end the new life inside her because she didn’t choose to have sex.
If that’s the case, then this isn’t about murder or not murder.
Someone already made the point that people might feel bad and sympathize with rape victims and thus would be more supportive of abortion in that case. You're right, that doesn't logically make sense if you believe that abortion is murder and that's because it's based on emotion and not logic. That also doesn't mean that everybody who's only for abortion in the case of rape/incest just wants to punish women.
What alternate take would you offer if you:
1. Believe that a fertilized zygote is of equal status with a born person
2. Abortion is killing an innocent person
3. Killing this innocent person is acceptable or understandable depending on the circumstances of its creation.
Because as I just wrote to another poster, if you accept abortion in cases of rape, you obviously don’t also accept infanticide in cases of rape, so it would seem that even those that concede some narrow non-medical exceptions for abortions acknowledge a difference in personhood between an early stage embryo and a born person.
Yes, pro-life absolutism is certainly a morally and intellectually defensible position. If you mock them, you will pay the price at polling booths.
I have also explained with multiple examples of the principle of not-at-fault in tort as well as criminal law in previous posts. Bringing a father-absent child into being that was conceived without the mother’s consent has a greater societal cost than the termination of early life. This nuance may be above your comprehension level, and if so, you are welcome to think fast-forward on behalf of pro-lifers and advocate for no exceptions even for rape/incest for the sake of your purity of moral principle.
Do you want to have a discussion? Don’t act like I don’t read about this subject or the differing view points or science involved. I’m trying to understand a point of view that’s different from my own, and I hope you’re interested in the same.
In the above highlighted portion, you concede that there are are situations where an abortion is acceptable. We both agree that infanticide in the same scenario (rape, incest) would never be acceptable. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I would say that you view the personhood of the newborn differently than the early stage pregnancy.
I am honestly trying but don’t see how I can help your reading problem. Here is my previously stated answer to your question: my personal position on what “life” is is insignificant to the point of irrelevance.
Quote: “My personal opinion on that is of negligible importance as is the SCOTUS’ for that matter (as SCOTUS itself conceded last week) or “Dr. Wise Old Man’s” or any shrill BS artist on this forum. As I said before, the people as a whole determine that…”
In the above highlighted portion, you concede that there are are situations where an abortion is acceptable. We both agree that infanticide in the same scenario (rape, incest) would never be acceptable. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I would say that you view the personhood of the newborn differently than the early stage pregnancy.
Sorry, hit reply too soon in my earlier post. I don’t have a problem saying yes, several stages from fertilization up until the first breath are quite different, scientifically speaking. Morally, it’s up to the people. I don’t mock or dismiss other people’s sincerely held beliefs.
My personal opinion on that is of negligible importance as is the SCOTUS’ for that matter (as SCOTUS itself conceded last week) or “Dr. Wise Old Man’s” or any shrill BS artist on this forum. As I said before, the people as a whole determine that through representative democracy. Repeating for your benefit coz you seem slow in reading comprehension:
”The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.”
I can imagine Yawn or a person with religious beliefs understandably disagreeing with the state’s authority above (although he is actually pleased with the recent scotus-to-state transfer of regulatory power), but all the pro-choice blatherers can’t possibly disagree unless they are literally advocating for abortion rights at 40 weeks right up until the baby starts breathing? As decided by unelected “experts”??
State have always been free to define when a fetus becomes viable and is thus "life" that must be protected by restricting abortion. But it turns out that women are involved in this (remember them?). And for about 50 years, our constitutional law actually gave a sh$t about women and held that the state's ability to regulate had to be balanced against a woman's right to privacy. That right of privacy is perhaps the most essential right that we have under our constitution in that it recognizes that there are certain parts of our lives where the government simply cannot go. When you take that right away from women, you then make all women subjects of the state in that through the political process women are legally forced to conceive children, even in the case of rape or incest and even if death or severe injury is likely if the woman is forced to conceive. And this will mean that women in states that have banned all abortion will be imprisoned and forced to conceive if they are caught trying to obtain an abortion. But many women will just die after going to an underground abortion provider.
So, while you think you have check and mate with your reductivist theory about the state determining life and your little missive about abortion moments before contractions begin, you have actually highlighted the fact that the state's regulatory power is actually being used to enslave women to being birthing vessels with no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term. Even if the "woman" is 12 years old and was raped by her father.
Hey Johnny come lately, learn to read what I’ve written. Don’t attribute your bizarre prejudices to me. Cut the grandiose humanities and social sciences bloviation.