Jesus Christ - you anti-abortion fanatics never give up with your contrived definitions of what is a person. A foetus is not "a whole class of innocent human beings". No society that permits abortion recognises your definition. Were it to do so then abortion at any stage, from conception onwards, would be regarded as murder. It isn't because your definition is false. It is your dogma. It is no more rationally based than the religious fundamentalism from which it is derived. In a free society, we are free to reject your antiquated values. But you and the religious right cannot accept that.
Which religious fundamentalism do you think is being expressed in opposition to direct abortion? Hinduism, Buddhism (many consider this a religion rather than a philosophy), Judaism, Christianity, Islam - the Big Five - all express significant opposition to direct abortion.
Direct abortion violates Natural Law, the Golden Rule, the Silver Rule, and, though Rawls was himself wishy-washy about its application to direct abortion, the Blind Veil of Justice.
It violates none of them. They apply to treatment of a person, not that which precedes it. It is a religious fundamentalism that says an embryo or a foetus is a person. Were your views generally accepted abortion would not be permitted in Western countries. It is.
The irony in this debate is that the right routinely accuses the left of denying personal freedoms but that is exactly what the right seeks to do on abortion rights. They know that the majority do not share their views or values and yet they would seek to impose what they cannot persuade. Of course they do. That is one of their values. Intolerance of difference.
Direct abortion denies EVERY personal freedom to a living unborn victim. It is by very, very, very, far a net destroyer of personal freedom. It delivers one choice, and with it a dead human being, while destroying an innocent human being and his or her lifetime of choices.
I hope you don't masturbate, because you are denying the possibility of life to an "innocent human being with a lifetime of choices". Actually, millions of them.
Which religious fundamentalism do you think is being expressed in opposition to direct abortion? Hinduism, Buddhism (many consider this a religion rather than a philosophy), Judaism, Christianity, Islam - the Big Five - all express significant opposition to direct abortion.
Direct abortion violates Natural Law, the Golden Rule, the Silver Rule, and, though Rawls was himself wishy-washy about its application to direct abortion, the Blind Veil of Justice.
It violates none of them. They apply to treatment of a person, not that which precedes it. It is a religious fundamentalism that says an embryo or a foetus is a person. Were your views generally accepted abortion would not be permitted in Western countries. It is.
Your posts brim with assertions and are bereft of any argument regarding personhood. And if a human fetus is not a person, it is striking that direct abortion is prohibited in so many European nations after 12-20 weeks.
Jefferson was not talking about the agglomeration of cells that is the foetus but those whom he recognized as human beings. That of course includes women. In that regard his values are shared by other Western democracies, who permit abortion. But they aren't values shared by the religious right, who would impose their dogma over all. They are well-represented here.
agglomeration of cells? Rarely is so little made of so much. You sound like the Wizard of Oz - "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" in trying to dismiss a unique human being as no more than a cluster of parts.
impose? If staying the hands of an abortionist is an imposition, surely more violent language is needed to describe chemically destroying a living human being with chemicals, slicing through it with scalpels, dismembering it with forceps, etc., to abort it.
Typically emotive rubbish. As usual it is based on the false view that the potential to be a human being means it has already been arrived at. It isn't accepted in other Western countries, which allow abortion.
It violates none of them. They apply to treatment of a person, not that which precedes it. It is a religious fundamentalism that says an embryo or a foetus is a person. Were your views generally accepted abortion would not be permitted in Western countries. It is.
Your posts brim with assertions and are bereft of any argument regarding personhood. And if a human fetus is not a person, it is striking that direct abortion is prohibited in so many European nations after 12-20 weeks.
It is quite clear that I do not regard personhood is arrived at at conception - and nor do those Western countries that permit abortion. Limits on abortion terms implicitly recognize that personhood is attained by degrees. They are also based on medical considerations. A foetus does not automatically qualify for personhood. The usual test is whether the unborn child is capable of life physically independent of the mother, which is very late in the 3rd trimester. Premature births show how difficult that is.
agglomeration of cells? Rarely is so little made of so much. You sound like the Wizard of Oz - "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" in trying to dismiss a unique human being as no more than a cluster of parts.
impose? If staying the hands of an abortionist is an imposition, surely more violent language is needed to describe chemically destroying a living human being with chemicals, slicing through it with scalpels, dismembering it with forceps, etc., to abort it.
Typically emotive rubbish. As usual it is based on the false view that the potential to be a human being means it has already been arrived at. It isn't accepted in other Western countries, which allow abortion.
The only potential human beings are human beings that have not been conceived already.
It violates none of them. They apply to treatment of a person, not that which precedes it. It is a religious fundamentalism that says an embryo or a foetus is a person. Were your views generally accepted abortion would not be permitted in Western countries. It is.
Your posts brim with assertions and are bereft of any argument regarding personhood. And if a human fetus is not a person, it is striking that direct abortion is prohibited in so many European nations after 12-20 weeks.
And why not before then? Why do European countries not start at conception?
The majority held that abortion is not a constitutional right as the Constitution does not mention it and its substantive right was not "deeply rooted" in the country's history, meaning that individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion.
Thus - for the constitutionally challenged - while not providing for abortion as a right the Constitution does not deny that States can choose to provide that right. The SCOTUS has left it up to them to decide that for themselves.
As we see yet again in threads such as these, the anti-abortion lobby is immovable on its dogma - even though other Western countries have long moved on from this debate.
You’re either pro choice or anti choice. A fetus is not a human being, it is closer to a parasite dependent on its host. Unborn means not living, therefore how can abortion be murder? The religious right is extreme because they believe life is important. It is not.
Typically emotive rubbish. As usual it is based on the false view that the potential to be a human being means it has already been arrived at. It isn't accepted in other Western countries, which allow abortion.
The only potential human beings are human beings that have not been conceived already.
Your dogma. It isn't accepted in other Western countries.
I find Armstronglivs obsession with American abortion laws to be comical given he is from New Zealand. Different cultures place different values on human life. The repeal of Roe simply means that in the US laws are decided on the state level where they can represent the values of the local community. There are states within the US with more liberal abortion laws than New Zealand (New Zealand has it's share of regulations on the practice as. Overall rates are comparable to the US). Just because you come from a country where eating other people was part of the culture does not mean it is the culture here. Maybe Armstronglivs is really Fat Basstard.
A concern about the denial of women's rights in the US may be comical to you but rather less so to women. It is interesting that you liken your different cultural approach to the long extinct practice of cannibalism (that has never been part of New Zealand culture but preceded it). Yes - it is backwards.
People in Vermont may feel that New Zealand is backwards in its approach. After all, New Zealand puts restrictions on abortions after 20 weeks. Truth is the US has many areas with laws more liberal than New Zealand, and there is nothing preventing people from residing in or going to those states. In that regard, the US is far more free than New Zealand. So maybe we should be lecturing you.
The only potential human beings are human beings that have not been conceived already.
Your dogma. It isn't accepted in other Western countries.
People often do things they know are wrong. I've heard many people claim that direct abortion is wrong but it should be legal. Their logic escapes reason.
You’re either pro choice or anti choice. A fetus is not a human being, it is closer to a parasite dependent on its host. Unborn means not living, therefore how can abortion be murder? The religious right is extreme because they believe life is important. It is not.
Direct abortion delivers one choice and destroys a life that otherwise would have had zillions of choices. Direct abortion destroys choices. "Pro-choice" is a misnomer.
For some reasons I don't think your final two statements will be adopted anytime soon by abortion advocates.
Your posts brim with assertions and are bereft of any argument regarding personhood. And if a human fetus is not a person, it is striking that direct abortion is prohibited in so many European nations after 12-20 weeks.
And why not before then? Why do European countries not start at conception?
Because it gets the sexually libertine of the hook; in Europe as in the US, direct abortion is overwhelmingly a consequence of sex between people unmarried to each other.
A concern about the denial of women's rights in the US may be comical to you but rather less so to women. It is interesting that you liken your different cultural approach to the long extinct practice of cannibalism (that has never been part of New Zealand culture but preceded it). Yes - it is backwards.
People in Vermont may feel that New Zealand is backwards in its approach. After all, New Zealand puts restrictions on abortions after 20 weeks. Truth is the US has many areas with laws more liberal than New Zealand, and there is nothing preventing people from residing in or going to those states. In that regard, the US is far more free than New Zealand. So maybe we should be lecturing you.
Casuistical rubbish. Like most Western countries today, New Zealand assures women abortion as a right; the United States does not. That means in many parts of the country women are denied abortions - at any point. It is also the avowed intention of those who oppose abortion to end that right in all states - to have a nationwide ban. Of course, your argument that it is simply a matter for states to decide, and not the nation, would have allowed the continuation of slavery.
But you are right - in some respects the US is more liberal than New Zealand. Like your gun laws. And see how that has worked out for you.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.