Page 6 of 10 [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

10 Dec 2013, 6:38 am

LKL wrote:
I think that a person who was bodily providing life support to another individual would have the right to remove themselves even if they had consciously volunteered to do so before hand.


You are a rather convenient libertarian.

Quote:
It's not independent. It has no existence outside of her.


That would be pretty much the textbook definition of an equivocation fallacy with regards to the term 'independent'.

Quote:
If it were possible to remove a zef from a woman at any stage of gestation, with no more danger to her than an abortion would cause, and place it into an artificial incubator, then the argument would be very different.


Future generations are going to judge us very harshly for our present situation.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

10 Dec 2013, 10:40 am

LKL wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
No, humans are not of any danger of dying out, so that vegetarian metaphor is more appropriate. Still, the vegetarians very well could be right, and they are trying to make legal and social change. One difference is how widespread meat eating vs abortion is. Also, not that I really accept these arguments, but someone could argue it's more natural to eat meat than have abortions. I personally I'm trying to gradually transition into vegetarianism.

I actually am a vegetarian, and the animal products that I do choose to consume are ethically based (pastured chickens for eggs (not just "free range," and grass-fed cows for dairy). However, I don't think that I have a right to impose my diet on other people. Wrt. what is "natural," I don't give a f**k; no medical care is natural. Having a dentist patch a cavity isn't "natural."

1. You are much older than me, so you've had much more time to change your lifestyle. However, what we do is irrelevant as debates are about our points, not us. You are also apparently a libertarian, I do not subscribe to libertarian philosophy, especially when I believe an catastrophe can be avoided.
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
LKL wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
When having sex you are always taking a risk, that's life. You take risks, and you have to accept the consequences if the risk falls through. By if you don't have sex you don't have any risk of getting pregnant, so if you don't want to have any unwanted pregnancies you can just avoid having sex. This is what makes rape different. Now, for biological reasons that means guys don't have as much risk with sex, and that disadvantage is unfair and abortions overcome that, but that's a different debate.

That's like saying that when you drive, you should accept the 'consequences' if you get into a car crash and just limp along on a broken leg until it heals by itself, rather than seeking medical treatment (assuming that you don't die).
The 'risk' of driving is car accidents. We have medical treatment for people who get into car accidents.
The 'risk' of sex is pregnancy and STDs. We have medical treatments for people who get pregnant or acquire STDs.

False analogy, as their is no ethical burden with getting medical treatment for a broken leg. This is purely hypothetical, but say if it required, oh, baby panda livers to fix a broken leg, than the argument might be relevant. One must live with a broken leg because it's wrong to cut out baby panda's livers.

Ok, let's change the analogy a little bit and say that the driver's kid was in the car too, and the kid needs a chunk of liver because his got blown to smithereens by blunt-force-truama during the accident (not unheard of). Should the driver/dad be forced to donate a chunk of his liver to the kid, who will die without it, because he 'chose' to drive and 'chose' to put the kid in the car? The dad will probably survive the donation.
What if the 'kid' in question is a non-sentient, non-sapient blob of more-or-less organized tissue?

Yes. What parents wouldn't do that? If he was completely obliterated how would just giving him a chunk of liver save him anyway?

I said that the kid's liver was blown to smithereens, not the kid himself.
As far as donating a liver, most parents would of course choose to do so. The question is whether or not they should be forced to do so by weight of law: forcibly held in the hospital, forcibly sedated, forcibly cut open against their wills. 1/3 of pregnancies in the US end in c-sections, so that's not a far stretch for an analogy. The question, further, is whether or not a person should be forced to donate their body to a disorganized lump of tissues with which they have no connection other than a genetic one.


Yes. They should be forced to. :P You really think someone should be allowed to die just because someone doesn't want to bother being cut open? Also, embryos aren't disorganized lumps of tissue, they lack developed morphology, but they are incredibly organized, and unlike brain dead person their functioning is going to increase in the future. You also can't be assured that sentience is completely lacked.
Quote:

Quote:
What difference does biological dependence made? Infants are still physiologically depend on their mothers as they can't fend for themselves.

You are incorrect. Infants are physiologically dependent on caretakers, but not necessarily their mother, nor even necessarily any adult. The difference made by biological dependence is that the woman in question has the right to not donate her body to another organism if she does not want to.


Does the definite autonomy of a single individual versus potentially a different group really matter in a life or death moral decision? Either way the baby is dependent, and it should be cared for.
Quote:

Quote:
Say a woman goes into labor, is it okay for her to get an abortion rather than go through birth at that point? After-all, the baby hasn't technically been born yet.

When you have any evidence that this actually happens on any statistical level involving medical staff who are not sociopaths, and women who are not sociopaths, I will consider it relevant. Until then, you have no point.


It has as much of a point as your exploded liver example. The point is that you are admitting that birth is not as absolute of a line as you proclaimed.
Quote:

Quote:
Might as well argue it's okay to kill diabetics because they can't naturally regulate their insulin levels.

If being a diabetic involved forcing another person to donate their pancreas for the manufacture of insulin, then yes: I would argue that the second person had the right to remove themselves at will as a life-support mechanism. Humans are not machines to be used by other organisms, regardless of the stage of development or the personhood in question.


False analogy as donating ones pancreas would leave one without a pancreas themselves. If there were no long term harm and only a single person is a viable donor, then yes, they should be forced to donate if the diabetic person demands it. I say ones control over their LIFE is more important than the control of their BODY.
Quote:

Quote:
The humanity argument you are making is irrelevant as by human I wasn't referring to biologically human, but to being "people".

I don't think zefs are people.


Doesn't matter what you think, other people think that they are and you can't kill something just on the grounds that you don't think it deserves rights.

LKL wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
Yes, if a woman has sex, pregnancy is a possible outcome. No, that does not make it a requirement for said woman to have the baby as some sort of punishment. If a smoker develops lung cancer, should we deny medical treatment because they were the ones who decided to smoke?

Getting pregnant should not be compared to developing lung cancer. That is disgusting.

why? They're both medical conditions, and for a woman who didn't want to get pregnant, the diagnosis can be just as devastating to hear.


They're both medical conditions?! Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels. Heck, by that logic BREATHING is a medical condition. If you are going to use medical condition to mean disease as opposed to simply a state that is medical in nature, than pregnancy does not qualify as it is not an abnormal state characteristic of dysfunction of the nature bodily functions, quite the opposite. It's a symptom the body is working as intended. Lung cancer kills, pregnancy creates life. With the view of life as sacred it's abhorrent to compare the two, and it doesn't take religion to have such beliefs. Oh, and yes, finding out you are breathing could be devastating for someone who wanted to stop breathing. :P


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

10 Dec 2013, 11:00 am

Ganondox wrote:
Yes. They should be forced to. :P You really think someone should be allowed to die just because someone doesn't want to bother being cut open? Also, embryos aren't disorganized lumps of tissue, they lack developed morphology, but they are incredibly organized, and unlike brain dead person their functioning is going to increase in the future. You also can't be assured that sentience is completely lacked.


Quote:
False analogy as donating ones pancreas would leave one without a pancreas themselves. If there were no long term harm and only a single person is a viable donor, then yes, they should be forced to donate if the diabetic person demands it. I say ones control over their LIFE is more important than the control of their BODY.


I have serious problems with your implying that forced organ donations should be allowed under any circumstances.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think zefs are people.


Doesn't matter what you think, other people think that they are and you can't kill something just on the grounds that you don't think it deserves rights.


But they most certainly can if their country's laws follow the same thinking. Many people have that same sentiment for anyone who has ever been to prison, is LGBT, is of a different religion/race/political group, of a different socio-economic status, or just from a different country. You have no right to demand others to follow your definition of morality any more than they can do the same to you. It is the law that dictates what you can and cannot do.

Quote:
Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels.


They are comparable, just not identical. And Jesus is not an angel by any mainstream religion's definition.

Quote:
Lung cancer kills, pregnancy creates life.


Lung cancer does not always kill. And I suppose if by creates life you mean by a breathing being, then yes, pregnancy creates life (usually). Personally, I feel that in most cases, having a child that one is not mentally, socially, physically, and/or financially able to support robs both the child and parent(s) of life, condemning them to misery and suffering until death.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

10 Dec 2013, 11:17 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Yes. They should be forced to. :P You really think someone should be allowed to die just because someone doesn't want to bother being cut open? Also, embryos aren't disorganized lumps of tissue, they lack developed morphology, but they are incredibly organized, and unlike brain dead person their functioning is going to increase in the future. You also can't be assured that sentience is completely lacked.


Quote:
False analogy as donating ones pancreas would leave one without a pancreas themselves. If there were no long term harm and only a single person is a viable donor, then yes, they should be forced to donate if the diabetic person demands it. I say ones control over their LIFE is more important than the control of their BODY.


I have serious problems with your implying that forced organ donations should be allowed under any circumstances.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think zefs are people.


Doesn't matter what you think, other people think that they are and you can't kill something just on the grounds that you don't think it deserves rights.


But they most certainly can if their country's laws follow the same thinking. Many people have that same sentiment for anyone who has ever been to prison, is LGBT, is of a different religion/race/political group, of a different socio-economic status, or just from a different country. You have no right to demand others to follow your definition of morality any more than they can do the same to you. It is the law that dictates what you can and cannot do.

Quote:
Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels.


They are comparable, just not identical. And Jesus is not an angel by any mainstream religion's definition.

Quote:
Lung cancer kills, pregnancy creates life.


Lung cancer does not always kill. And I suppose if by creates life you mean by a breathing being, then yes, pregnancy creates life (usually). Personally, I feel that in most cases, having a child that one is not mentally, socially, physically, and/or financially able to support robs both the child and parent(s) of life, condemning them to misery and suffering until death.

Some people aren't lax enough to let laws cloud moral law.
And some people actually would rather have people live rather than kill them just because of a poor sh***y life.
This isn't 400 B.C. Sparta.


_________________
comedic burp


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

10 Dec 2013, 11:20 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Yes. They should be forced to. :P You really think someone should be allowed to die just because someone doesn't want to bother being cut open? Also, embryos aren't disorganized lumps of tissue, they lack developed morphology, but they are incredibly organized, and unlike brain dead person their functioning is going to increase in the future. You also can't be assured that sentience is completely lacked.


Quote:
False analogy as donating ones pancreas would leave one without a pancreas themselves. If there were no long term harm and only a single person is a viable donor, then yes, they should be forced to donate if the diabetic person demands it. I say ones control over their LIFE is more important than the control of their BODY.


I have serious problems with your implying that forced organ donations should be allowed under any circumstances.


Well it's not law, at least not now, so you have nothing to worry about. Anyway, what's wrong with it? People need organs. In the very least we should make organ donation the default, it has a huge effect.
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think zefs are people.


Doesn't matter what you think, other people think that they are and you can't kill something just on the grounds that you don't think it deserves rights.


But they most certainly can if their country's laws follow the same thinking. Many people have that same sentiment for anyone who has ever been to prison, is LGBT, is of a different religion/race/political group, of a different socio-economic status, or just from a different country. You have no right to demand others to follow your definition of morality any more than they can do the same to you. It is the law that dictates what you can and cannot do.


So if the law says it's okay to kill gay people you would have no problems with it? Laws change, we are debating ethics.
Quote:

Quote:
Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels.


They are comparable, just not identical. And Jesus is not an angel by any mainstream religion's definition.

Oh whatever, substitute Michael for Jesus, doesn't really matter. The point isn't the aren't comparable in anyway, but the dichotomy.
Quote:

Quote:
Lung cancer kills, pregnancy creates life.


Lung cancer does not always kill. And I suppose if by creates life you mean by a breathing being, then yes, pregnancy creates life (usually). Personally, I feel that in most cases, having a child that one is not mentally, socially, physically, and/or financially able to support robs both the child and parent(s) of life, condemning them to misery and suffering until death.


Of all cancers lung cancer causes the most deaths, it usually kills, and untreated it certainly well kill. The natural destination of lung cancer is death, in contrast with pregnancy. And yes, that what life is. I see the creation of life as sacred and beautiful, no matter the ultimate outcome, that is not the result of life being created, but rather the environment the life exists in. Oh, last thing.

>Implying all would be aborted fetuses would live a miserable life

Nice to know you are now the arbitrator of how much someone's life is worth.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

10 Dec 2013, 11:26 am

appletheclown wrote:
Some people aren't lax enough to let laws cloud moral law.
And some people actually would rather have people live rather than kill them just because of a poor sh***y life.
This isn't 400 B.C. Sparta.


And who exactly enforces moral law? That nutjob who thought it was ok to murder someone for performing an abortion?


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

10 Dec 2013, 11:36 am

sonofghandi wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Some people aren't lax enough to let laws cloud moral law.
And some people actually would rather have people live rather than kill them just because of a poor sh***y life.
This isn't 400 B.C. Sparta.


And who exactly enforces moral law? That nutjob who thought it was ok to murder someone for performing an abortion?

Not someone who refuses to. And it wasn't ok that man to murder someone for preforming an abortion. Just like it wasn't ok for the Spartans to commit infanticide. You don't give up morals because the law allows you the choice to do so.


_________________
comedic burp


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

10 Dec 2013, 11:40 am

Ganondox wrote:
So if the law says it's okay to kill gay people you would have no problems with it? Laws change, we are debating ethics.


I didn't say I wouldn't have problems with it, but if it was the law, then people most certainly could do it. My issue was with your statement that you cannot do it, not with whether you believed it was morally ok.

Quote:
Quote:
Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels.


Quote:
They are comparable, just not identical. And Jesus is not an angel by any mainstream religion's definition.


Quote:
Oh whatever, substitute Michael for Jesus, doesn't really matter. The point isn't the aren't comparable in anyway, but the dichotomy.


They are still comparable. Both were creations of God, both were angels, both dwelt in heaven, both have had much interaction with humanity. The only real differencxe is where they ended up.

Quote:
I see the creation of life as sacred and beautiful, no matter the ultimate outcome, that is not the result of life being created, but rather the environment the life exists in.


So your concern is only up until the moment of birth? Or am I misunderstanding?
Personally, I see the creation of life as a biomechanical process. Metabolizing your food and the creation of gallstones is just as natural.

Quote:
Implying all would be aborted fetuses would live a miserable life

Nice to know you are now the arbitrator of how much someone's life is worth.


I did not say all, I said most. Most of those born into poverty will die in poverty. Most of those born to convicted criminals will become convicted criminals. This is fact.

And you seem to be the one playing arbitrator with the value of human life. According to you, a single teenage, unemployed, drug addicted, poverty stricken pregnant girl should be forced to have a child that will destroy her life even more just because you don't like certain laws.

Yes, maybe that child will grow up happy, well-adjusted, and a productive member of society, but more likely, that child will be a burden to society and detrimental to the happiness and well-being of all those around it as well as leading a life of misery itself.

If you want to continue arguing the morality of abortion, that is fine by me, but since it is legal, I really don't think you have much of a say in what people do.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

10 Dec 2013, 11:56 am

appletheclown wrote:
You don't give up morals because the law allows you the choice to do so.


I am not asking you to. Feel free to not get as many abortions as you want. Obey your own moral code as best you can, but do not try to force it on others when the law is not on your side.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

10 Dec 2013, 11:56 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So if the law says it's okay to kill gay people you would have no problems with it? Laws change, we are debating ethics.
Quote:

I didn't say I wouldn't have problems with it, but if it was the law, then people most certainly could do it. My issue was with your statement that you cannot do it, not with whether you believed it was morally ok.



When I said can't I meant ethically, not legally. Laws come afterward. Laws don't make something literally impossible anyway.
Quote:

Quote:
Equivocation! I might as say Jesus and Satan are comparable because they are both angels.


Quote:
They are comparable, just not identical. And Jesus is not an angel by any mainstream religion's definition.


Quote:
Oh whatever, substitute Michael for Jesus, doesn't really matter. The point isn't the aren't comparable in anyway, but the dichotomy.


They are still comparable. Both were creations of God, both were angels, both dwelt in heaven, both have had much interaction with humanity. The only real differencxe is where they ended up.

WHATEVER! It doesn't change the argument at all.
Quote:

Quote:
I see the creation of life as sacred and beautiful, no matter the ultimate outcome, that is not the result of life being created, but rather the environment the life exists in.


So your concern is only up until the moment of birth? Or am I misunderstanding?
Personally, I see the creation of life as a biomechanical process. Metabolizing your food and the creation of gallstones is just as natural.

You are misunderstanding. The creation of life would be conception, I guess, but life continues throughout, well, life, and life is beautiful.
Quote:

Quote:
Implying all would be aborted fetuses would live a miserable life

Nice to know you are now the arbitrator of how much someone's life is worth.


I did not say all, I said most. Most of those born into poverty will die in poverty. Most of those born to convicted criminals will become convicted criminals. This is fact.


>Implying most would be abortions are in poverty (probably true)
>implying poverty is so much misery that it's better if the poor were never born at all
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I[/youtube]
Quote:

And you seem to be the one playing arbitrator with the value of human life. According to you, a single teenage, unemployed, drug addicted, poverty stricken pregnant girl should be forced to have a child that will destroy her life even more just because you don't like certain laws.


Actually, no. I've never actually given what my abortion policy would be, but it's a lot more lenient than I'm letting on. For one, teenagers aren't old enough to be sexually accountable by law, so just under that she would qualify for abortion under the rape premise. Also, if the pregnancy was truely putting the mothers life at risk in anyway I'd have no problems with an abortion.
Quote:

Yes, maybe that child will grow up happy, well-adjusted, and a productive member of society, but more likely, that child will be a burden to society and detrimental to the happiness and well-being of all those around it as well as leading a life of misery itself.


Nice to know that you think all poor people are nothing to but a burden to society. I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

Quote:
If you want to continue arguing the morality of abortion, that is fine by me, but since it is legal, I really don't think you have much of a say in what people do.

This is stupid logic. What would be the point in discussing anything if we are just going to accept the law as perfect both practically and morally?


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

10 Dec 2013, 12:51 pm

Ganondox wrote:
When I said can't I meant ethically, not legally. Laws come afterward. Laws don't make something literally impossible anyway.


In that case, I have no problems with your opinion.

Quote:
You are misunderstanding. The creation of life would be conception, I guess, but life continues throughout, well, life, and life is beautiful.


There are a multitude of people out there who do not find their lives to be beautiful.

Quote:
>Implying most would be abortions are in poverty (probably true)
>implying poverty is so much misery that it's better if the poor were never born at all


Quote:
Nice to know that you think all poor people are nothing to but a burden to society. I'll be sure to keep that in mind.


You are reading a bit too much into my words. I personally feel that there is entirely too much poverty, and that adding to their ranks is going to lead to much more suffering for more people for a longer period of time. I think we should be fighting poverty, not abortion. I do not feel that it is ok to ask existing people to sacrifice their future happiness, finances, hopes, and dreams for the sake of a potential person's potential happiness. I have lived in poverty stricken areas my entire life, and until recently was well under the poverty line. I have seen first hand how difficult life is for those who are trapped in poverty and hopelessness. Increasing that population helps no one.

Quote:
Quote:
If you want to continue arguing the morality of abortion, that is fine by me, but since it is legal, I really don't think you have much of a say in what people do.

This is stupid logic. What would be the point in discussing anything if we are just going to accept the law as perfect both practically and morally?


You can talk about what you believe all you want to; I am just saying that as long as abortion is legal, you cannot demand others to follow your personal version of moral law.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Dec 2013, 2:14 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
When I said can't I meant ethically, not legally. Laws come afterward. Laws don't make something literally impossible anyway.


In that case, I have no problems with your opinion.

Quote:
You are misunderstanding. The creation of life would be conception, I guess, but life continues throughout, well, life, and life is beautiful.


There are a multitude of people out there who do not find their lives to be beautiful.

Quote:
>Implying most would be abortions are in poverty (probably true)
>implying poverty is so much misery that it's better if the poor were never born at all


Quote:
Nice to know that you think all poor people are nothing to but a burden to society. I'll be sure to keep that in mind.


You are reading a bit too much into my words. I personally feel that there is entirely too much poverty, and that adding to their ranks is going to lead to much more suffering for more people for a longer period of time. I think we should be fighting poverty, not abortion. I do not feel that it is ok to ask existing people to sacrifice their future happiness, finances, hopes, and dreams for the sake of a potential person's potential happiness. I have lived in poverty stricken areas my entire life, and until recently was well under the poverty line. I have seen first hand how difficult life is for those who are trapped in poverty and hopelessness. Increasing that population helps no one.

Quote:
Quote:
If you want to continue arguing the morality of abortion, that is fine by me, but since it is legal, I really don't think you have much of a say in what people do.

This is stupid logic. What would be the point in discussing anything if we are just going to accept the law as perfect both practically and morally?


You can talk about what you believe all you want to; I am just saying that as long as abortion is legal, you cannot demand others to follow your personal version of moral law.

Appeal to law. Over time laws are fickle and can be changed. While the individual cannot do much in the face of the law, it is possible for a growing minority fighting injustice to set the law on its ear. All it should take is acceptance of the unborn as the persons that they are with as much right to life as those already outside the womb.

That doesn't mean "majority makes it right," of course, but right or wrong the will of the people often prevails in a free society.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

10 Dec 2013, 2:23 pm

AngelRho wrote:
That doesn't mean "majority makes it right," of course, but right or wrong the will of the people often prevails in a free society.


It often does (blue and green means generally legal).

Image



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

10 Dec 2013, 2:41 pm

The demographic changes in the US (declining overall religiosity and a greater share of religious views that are more pro-choice) mean that pro-choice sentiment will increase over time.

... assuming, of course, a free society.

Sources:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/15/abor ... filiation/
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

10 Dec 2013, 2:44 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Appeal to law. Over time laws are fickle and can be changed. While the individual cannot do much in the face of the law, it is possible for a growing minority fighting injustice to set the law on its ear. All it should take is acceptance of the unborn as the persons that they are with as much right to life as those already outside the womb.

That doesn't mean "majority makes it right," of course, but right or wrong the will of the people often prevails in a free society.


The only reason I bring law in is because you cannot demand someone do what you want if the law does not support you. If abortion was not legal, I would probably not be in this argument. If you don't like the laws, by all means continue to write to your representatives and tell them so in no uncertain terms.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Dec 2013, 3:49 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Appeal to law. Over time laws are fickle and can be changed. While the individual cannot do much in the face of the law, it is possible for a growing minority fighting injustice to set the law on its ear. All it should take is acceptance of the unborn as the persons that they are with as much right to life as those already outside the womb.

That doesn't mean "majority makes it right," of course, but right or wrong the will of the people often prevails in a free society.


The only reason I bring law in is because you cannot demand someone do what you want if the law does not support you. If abortion was not legal, I would probably not be in this argument. If you don't like the laws, by all means continue to write to your representatives and tell them so in no uncertain terms.

We're working on it.