Democrat infanticide?

Post Reply New Topic

<reality mode activated>
I have gotten real now...

You are once again nurturing your dismissive attitude towards a valid comment (from the point of the original poster...to which I have no personal investment.)
May I suggest you play the ball rather than the person...

Your argument is contingent on the following:
- It is not what is said but the circumstance in which it is said...
- An intellectual construct is only valid if it meets your particular context...

What you have done here is to embrace the fallacy that a concept cannot stand on its own, regardless of the presentation...
This is self-evidently incorrect, and your comment is actually an exercise of intellectual slight of hands...
Kudos to your audacity...

Unfortunately for ewe :


You have not fooled me...

To be clear: I never suggested we should...
And as I have said in the past, and as you can see in my signature, I have no interest in defining policy...

But yes, I agree with you here...
I am only expressing my particular POV...

And as I have said since the time of my birth, I have never, to my knowledge, influenced anyone to change their philosophical position...
Nor do I want to...

It was meant to sound humorous, in a tragic way...
"Don't you know who I am?"...

Feel free to laugh at my comedic humour...
Feel free to laugh at me...
I have more than enough self-confidence to handle the latter...

Ah good, I misconstrued your post. Apologies.

NP...
Give us a hug, you big galoot...

Finally, an answer worth responding to. Thank you.

I've been thinking about our previous discussions on this, and I've reached a similar conclusion: No one has the right to choose for another person what that person can or cannot do to his or her body.

HOWEVER, if it is assumed that a human fetus is a person with the same rights as any human that has been born, then it is fair and right to state that not even the mother has the right to decide to abort the unborn human, and that abortion is murder.

HOWEVER, HOWEVER, if is is instead assumed that a human fetus does not become a "person-with-rights" until the moment of birth, than any action or event that terminates the life of that fetus does not incriminate the person(s) who initiated the action or event, and abortion is not murder.

So, the crux of the matter is in the legal definition of when a fetus become a "person-with-rights". Does it happen at the moment of conception (T = 0)? The moment of implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining (T = 7 to 11 days)? The moment that the fetal brain starts developing (T = 16 days)? The moment the fetal heart starts beating (T = 6 to 7 weeks)? The moment the fetus begins first sucking and swallowing impulses (T = 16 weeks)? The moment that fetal reflexes begin (T = 21 weeks)? The moment that fetal brain activity begins (T = 28 weeks)?

At this point, 7 months have passed. This is the time when some babies are born prematurely and survive. If a baby is born prematurely, does it become a "person-with-rights", or does the law require that those right don't kick in until the fetus/preemie has live a full 9 months since conception?

The more I think on this topic, the more questions I have; and the more questions I have, the more I am convinced that I do not have the right to determine when a fetus stops being a mass of organic tissue and becomes a "person-with-rights".

Now, if it's an issue of viability -- a question of "Could the fetus survive without artificial support?" -- then we also have to address whether or not a comatose person is still a "person-with-rights" or just a collection of harvest-able organs on clean white sheets.

Obviously, there is no simple solution, since there is no agreement on how long a fetus remains a thing and when to declare it a "person-with-rights". This is why legal decisions keep going back-and-forth.

Damn you are good...
So committed...
Kudos...

Hey, it's what I do!

You are very entertaining...

Thank you! I'm here all week, so tip the waitresses generously!

This in itself needs justification. Myself I don't see any problem with telling people what not to do with their bodies, if the cause is just and I'm a government-under-my-feet-not-over-my-head Englishman born in the wrong time. What is this magical right that says people can pump any kind of poison into their bodies or kill the unborn? What good does it serve? I don't see it myself



Agreed more or less, with a caveat about "personhood" below.



Absolutely, the nature of the unborn is the blazing singularity of this argument. If it is human, abortion is almost always wrong. If it isn't human, you don't even need an excuse to do away with it. The attempts to frame it as a sexism thing or feminist or woman's issue is either clever PR or projection. More likely projection on the part of women I suspect. Abortion is the final guarantee of sexual freedom - they fight on those terms and they often assume those who oppose abortion do so because they want to curtail sexual freedom, not because they have genuine concerns about the unborn and the morality of terminating them.

Regarding personhood. We should be careful about the terminology, in the US and many jurisdictions personhood is about the ability to make contracts and does not apply until age 18. Obviously this doesn't apply to the unborn, but also doesn't apply to 10 year olds either.



After spending much time thinking on it, to me the only sensible place seems to be T=0. With nothing better to go on, that appears to be the beginning of our time as biological humans. After that point, arguments pretend we somehow cease to be biological entities and must be something more to be truly "alive". Before that point we start talking about Catholic-ish masturbation=genocide arguments and whether there is such a thing as destiny. Those arguments have not swayed me as of yet.



Anyone can have an opinion on the matter. Given the grave implications, someone somewhere always has to make a decision though. The Western nations made the wrong choice in my opinion.



I've covered viability countless times in these threads. It's largely BS and was a direct response to the partial birth brouhaha. It's BS because it has no basis in science or morality or anything else of importance. We don't apply it to any other life form in the biological world. "Parasites" do not cease to be living beings because they depend on another life form, unless of course they are a certain class of human (hear that alarm bell going off in your head yet?). It's just a clever construct to stop extract-and-execute abortions described above while allowing visually cleaner and less morally troublesome scramble-and-vacuum abortions to continue.

Last edited by Mikah on 06 May 2019, 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing...

Awww...
Offer a guy a tentacle and he rejects it...
"A time for peace I swear it's not too late"...
Where is your Christian spirit?...


https://youtu.be/HaQkX_rXBbA

I've felt the same at times.

I also agree with everything that you've said.

My opinion is that every life that's conceived is precious. I also think that if people don't like handicapped people or children, they shouldn't have sex. If you don't like children, don't have sex. If you don't like mentally of physically handicapped people, don't have sex.