Is their a Leftist Agenda in Academia?

Post Reply New Topic

I think there are two decent tests of being alive but one is in the pro life category and the other in the pro choice one.

First heartbeat and first breath.

If you shoot up an abortion clinic and kill a doctor though, you are most definitely committing murder and are a hypocrite if you are doing it because you see abortion as murder.

Interesting culture those Romans had ? Considered they had conquered most of there own known world .

Hey I mean it's highly immoral by today's standards but if you want strong warriors and have no access to ultrasound, abandoning unwanted disabled newborns and favouring their stronger siblings is one way to do that...

Same with Vikings.

I have a vague memory that they believed there was something akin to the modern day soul but that it only came to the baby a week after the baby was born. If they wanted a baby to stay alive, they had to stand guard over it til then & if they didn't then they could guilt free get rid of it. If someone longed for a baby and couldn't have one the normal way, they could go find one on the hillside & raise it as their own.

Animals have a similar system with runts. My cat's mother sat on my cat's sister, who was the runt of the litter, killing her and preserving milk for the stronger ones.

Glad am not a cat. ?????

Slavery is immoral by today's standards and was accepted among the Romans, Vikings, etc...

Infanticide is bad. The babies were eaten or starved or froze to death. That is bad.

Yes, but the point I'm making is they didn't see the babies as being alive yet.

So pro-lifers having a different starting point to pro-choicers... pro choice nowadays ends at birth. Nobody in our culture/cultures would say that newborns aren't babies or that parents have a choice in their life or death.

I don't think life begins at conception but I'm happy having it so that late term abortion isn't legal. Especially since the dependency argument (the argument that you can kill anything inside of you because it depends on you for life) depends on a mistaken idea that babies are somehow not dependent on their mothers/a substitute adult after birth as well.

Anyway my point is that 'starting point of life' is quite a mucky area, influenced quite a bit by culture, and if we want to be scientific about it we should focus on discussion of 'should someone with a heartbeat be aborted' or 'should we consider those who can't yet breathe/haven't yet been born in our ethical considerations'.

I don't understand why some people consider this abortion thing to be such huge issue, because can't people just use condoms and contraceptive pills and just call it a day, rather than fighting for an issue, which you can just get around with contraceptives anyway?

When you start to think about if it counts with a heartbeat, breathing, aren't you just overthinking, and just use contraceptives and call it a day?

Makes you wonder what the people of tomorrow will think of our "morality", particularly regarding abortion.

Because some people (I'm being inclusive because trans guys exist) get raped & some people live in places with neither access to contraception nor access to abortion. Could practice abstinence of course, but people don't tend to do that in practice. For a comparison - I wish people would be teetotal but prohibition isn't the way to do that because just cos there's a law, doesn't mean it will be broken.

If abortion is illegal, in reality, people just seek out dangerous ways to do it. Now we don't know if someone with a heartbeat and no breath is alive-alive, that's an academic debate. We do know that a full grown adult is alive and shouldn't be killed via coat hanger or poison trying to have an abortion, better that we provide safer methods so they survive it.

Plus there's this idea with ultra sounds that 'I couldn't have a disabled kid' and they know if their kid's disabled or not before birth - not all disabilities but some of the more severe ones.

I believe that abstinence is best and contraception is second best. If either is actually practiced as a choice by the individual. But just telling teens 'don't have sex' doesn't work. It has to be an individual's decision and again - rape exists and doesn't care about consent.

I think this especially with late term abortion of disabled fetuses who wouldn't be allowed to be aborted if they weren't disabled.

Not much different to the hillside practices with the weaker babies or the practices of non-human animals killing off the runt.

Nowadays we know that many disabled children survive until adulthood. Not everyone does of course, but enough of a percentage that getting rid of them in the last trimester is pretty sick.

In any case when it comes to studies, we're not necessarily talking about the person getting the abortion. We're talking about how it would arise in a lecture/seminar.

Studying biology: use medical language. Learn when various processes begin biologically. I suggest even staying away from 'baby' when it comes to babies who've been born - there's a difference, after all, between 'infant' and 'toddler'.
Studying philosophy: have a debate.
Studying law: learn what the laws are. Use legal language.

I just strongly doubt that someone who shoots up an abortion clinic isn't doing that out of emotion.