XCR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anyone had a chance to read through this decision?


I'm still digesting it (I've been pretty busy with work) but my initial impressions are favorable.

I'm vehemently pro-choice (on everything), but I think that Roe was a terrible decision, and it needed to be overruled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Have not read it yet. I’ve just seen snippets that have been posted on other forums. RvW was an impossible stretch at the Constitution’s level and abortion should have always been a state issue. I’m fairly live and let live on most issues but this one because you’re depriving that life of, well, everything. Still feel it’s not my place to force my beliefs on anyone but I would strongly advocate for life if I was involved in such a situation. It’s an ugly topic that’s been turned into a political football and is being used to widen the divides in our society.

Just my two cents…take it or leave it as it’s still ok to do so in this country…at least for now! Also, 2 cents ain’t worth what it used to be! Thanks Joe!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
I'm of the opinion we need a "bodily autonomy" amendment...but neither side would ever support it. There's too much power to be had claiming they own our bodies.

No more War on Drugs, abortion between a patient and their doctor and vaccine mandates wouldn't be a thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I listened to it and think the decision was incredibly well written. It even went so far as to anticipate the poor arguments against it.

I'm vehemently pro-choice (on everything), but I think that Roe was a terrible decision, and it needed to be overruled.
Your intellectual honesty is rare and appreciated. The vast vast majority of those who are pro-abortion willfully lie about what the Constitution says because the end justifies the means in their minds. It's ironic that the same three judges who couldn't find the right to carry a weapon in the Constitution could find the right to abortion in the Constitution.

I'm of the opinion we need a "bodily autonomy" amendment...but neither side would ever support it.
This is the location argument. This issue is that an unborn baby is a unique human being inside another human being. Being unique, they have all the same rights as the person carrying him/her. Their location doesn't change this. Furthermore, the parents who willfully engaged in sex (which has a known consequence), have a moral obligation to protect their children. Liberty does not rest on one's ability to kill the most innocent among us. In fact, one could argue that to preserve it for ourselves, we must be willing to protect the innocent who cannot protect themselves.

abortion between a patient and their doctor
This is Stacey Abrams exact position. It's a not so effective attempt to avoid the fact that killing another human being is a moral issue. There is no shortage of doctors who are willing to do evil things, which is why they don't get carte blanche power to do anything they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The vast vast majority of those who are pro-abortion willfully lie about what the Constitution says because the end justifies the means in their minds.
Politics involves a lot of double standards. Look at Kennedy v Bremerton for example. If Kennedy was muslim, I'm absolutely certain that the 85% of the general public would have instantly swapped sides on that one. The left would have been holding mass marches and protests to support his right to pray, had he simply been observing a different religion. And were he a muslim, the right would be indignant were he rolling out a prayer rug on the 50 yard line.

Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that the Supreme Court would have been much better. I'd bet (because of past opinions) that Justice Thomas would remain consistent regardless of the actual religion being practiced. I'd guess that Justice Gorsuch would also (he hasn't been on the court long enough for me see him doing that in the past though). I expect that almost everyone else would just flip-flop all over depending on the facts. I know for sure that Roberts (who is basically a weaselly politician) and Alito (who is far too willing to hammer the law around to meet his own biases) would have sided against a muslim plaintiff in that case. And I'm 100% certain that Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer would have landed on the other side with a simple change in facts. Kavanaugh and Barrett? I can't say because I haven't read enough of their decisions. If we're all very lucky, they'll turn out to put principles before politics in the long run. However, the history of the court doesn't fill me with great hope.


Back to Dobbs though. I really think that in an issue this contentious, finding some implied (but never explicitly stated) right to abortion in the Constitution was a huge mistake. It sets up a massive amount of internal strife in the country. The proper way to address this kind of thing (and the drafters of the Constitution knew this) is to devolve the decision making to the lowest possible level. A single standard imposed on the entire nation by a centralized authority will tear the country apart--and it's been doing exactly that for the last 50 years. Something like this needs to be decided by the legislatures, not the courts, and hopefully not at a national level. People in California or New York shouldn't be imposing their standards on people in Wyoming any more than people in Washington ought to be imposing their standards on people in Baghdad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
This is the location argument. This issue is that an unborn baby is a unique human being inside another human being. Being unique, they have all the same rights as the person carrying him/her. Their location doesn't change this. Furthermore, the parents who willfully engaged in sex (which has a known consequence), have a moral obligation to protect their children. Liberty does not rest on one's ability to kill the most innocent among us. In fact, one could argue that to preserve it for ourselves, we must be willing to protect the innocent who cannot protect themselves.


This is Stacey Abrams exact position. It's a not so effective attempt to avoid the fact that killing another human being is a moral issue. There is no shortage of doctors who are willing to do evil things, which is why they don't get carte blanche power to do anything they want.
We disagree...as we have on this subject in the past.

Scenario: You like me a lot. You invite me to dinner. You know I may bring along a friend who you don't particularly care for, but you want to see me even though there's a risk of him showing up. We have a great time, in spite of my bringing along my friend. When it's time to leave, I go home....but my friend says you can't make him leave b/c he'll die if you kick him out of your house and that you now have to feed and shelter him for the next 9 months at a minimum. Are you obligated to house him until he's "safe"?

The only real difference is the baby had no choice as to whether or not to show up to dinner.

The whole argument that the baby is a body inside a woman's body and therefore should be protected is no different than someone inserting themselves into your body (even by your own invitation) and being told you can't forcibly remove them until they are ready to leave.

Essentially, the baby's well being is a positive right upon the mother and positive rights are rarely legitimate b/c in order to exercise them, someone else has to provide it. It's like a positive 'right' to healthcare, education, a living wage, a job, etc. In order to exercise those alleged rights someone else must take action (at a minimum)....and that action could effectively be akin to slavery depending on the other person's willingness to provide it.

Further, saying 'human being' is a bit less black and white than what you've stated considering 20-25% of all pregnancies in the US end in miscarriage. Potentiality is not actualization.

Don't misunderstand me....as I've stated frequently: Abortion is murder. They are not fetuses, but babies. It is abhorrent to my religious beliefs and is morally wrong....but I cannot force my morals on other people.

Bodily autonomy is something we have or we don't. You can't claim it in one instance and not in another. To argue that the state has authority over our bodies is to accept all the usurpations of our other enumerated rights that have occurred as a consequence of such a stance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Scenario: You like me a lot. You invite me to dinner. You know I may bring along a friend who you don't particularly care for, but you want to see me even though there's a risk of him showing up. We have a great time, in spite of my bringing along my friend. When it's time to leave, I go home....but my friend says you can't make him leave b/c he'll die if you kick him out of your house and that you now have to feed and shelter him for the next 9 months at a minimum. Are you obligated to house him until he's "safe"?

The only real difference is the baby had no choice as to whether or not to show up to dinner.
I think the scenario might be more like 'the friend is jewish, and the nazis occupy the country while he's in your home.' If you kick him out he's 100% certain to die. It's hard to envision a scenario in which the dinner guest is 100% certain to die if you kick him out, but the fetus is 100% certain to die.

In the final analysis, I agree with you, probably both ways (you have a right to kick someone out, even if it leads to their certain death, and doing so is highly immoral), but I think that to be intellectually honest we have to recognize that this actually does lead to certain death. I'm just utterly unwilling to force one human to live for the sake of another--even if it's literally the second's life that is at stake.

There is also the issue (which you pointed out) that the fetus has no choice in the matter. On the other hand, it has no consciousness either, so it's totally unaware of the scenario, and there is no 'person' there yet to protect--just the likelihood (not certainty) of one developing.



I wonder how the ethical issues could change if we developed technologies that can keep the fetus alive outside the mother's body? What if a charity group just offered to artificially incubate the fetus, so the mother could 'abort' without killing the child? Would that satisfy both sides, because the woman could end her pregnancy and walk away, but the child would still have the chance of being born? Being an unwanted child who couldn't be aborted doesn't sound like it's exactly an ideal situation for someone to grow up in--although I'd bet that 95% of the time, the parent(s) would find that the level of love they had for their child would be the same, even if they had at one point intended to terminate the pregnancy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
I think the scenario might be more like 'the friend is jewish, and the nazis occupy the country while he's in your home.' If you kick him out he's 100% certain to die. It's hard to envision a scenario in which the dinner guest is 100% certain to die if you kick him out, but the fetus is 100% certain to die.

In the final analysis, I agree with you, probably both ways (you have a right to kick someone out, even if it leads to their certain death, and doing so is highly immoral), but I think that to be intellectually honest we have to recognize that this actually does lead to certain death. I'm just utterly unwilling to force one human to live for the sake of another--even if it's literally the second's life that is at stake.

There is also the issue (which you pointed out) that the fetus has no choice in the matter. On the other hand, it has no consciousness either, so it's totally unaware of the scenario, and there is no 'person' there yet to protect--just the likelihood (not certainty) of one developing.



I wonder how the ethical issues could change if we developed technologies that can keep the fetus alive outside the mother's body? What if a charity group just offered to artificially incubate the fetus, so the mother could 'abort' without killing the child? Would that satisfy both sides, because the woman could end her pregnancy and walk away, but the child would still have the chance of being born? Being an unwanted child who couldn't be aborted doesn't sound like it's exactly an ideal situation for someone to grow up in--although I'd bet that 95% of the time, the parent(s) would find that the level of love they had for their child would be the same, even if they had at one point intended to terminate the pregnancy.
Doesn't much matter why he'll die really....that's not the emphasis of the scenario...just that he will.

And that technology is another branch of my thoughts on the matter. Currently that's 20 weeks...but is a mulitmillion dollar endeavor in an ICU and we need to discuss who pays for it and who raises the child then (hopefully NOT the state as we know how that will turn out).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Scenario: You like me a lot. You invite me to dinner. You know I may bring along a friend who you don't particularly care for, but you want to see me even though there's a risk of him showing up. We have a great time, in spite of my bringing along my friend. When it's time to leave, I go home....but my friend says you can't make him leave b/c he'll die if you kick him out of your house and that you now have to feed and shelter him for the next 9 months at a minimum. Are you obligated to house him until he's "safe"?

The only real difference is the baby had no choice as to whether or not to show up to dinner.
The other difference is that I have full knowledge up front that if your friend shows up, he can't leave because he'll die. Therefore, if I invite you I assume the moral risk of protecting your friend if he happens to show up.

The whole argument that the baby is a body inside a woman's body and therefore should be protected is no different than someone inserting themselves into your body (even by your own invitation) and being told you can't forcibly remove them until they are ready to leave.
This is a variation on the violinist argument. It's probably the best argument to be made, but it's a fantasy dreamed up to create a scenario to justify abortion. Here's a decent video discussing the violinist argument.

Essentially, the baby's well being is a positive right upon the mother and positive rights are rarely legitimate b/c in order to exercise them, someone else has to provide it. It's like a positive 'right' to healthcare, education, a living wage, a job, etc. In order to exercise those alleged rights someone else must take action (at a minimum)....and that action could effectively be akin to slavery depending on the other person's willingness to provide it.
I don't believe there is a such thing as positive rights. If you're ability to do something depends on another's ability to pay, then it's not a right. It's socialism. In this case I think that it's a long stretch to equate the two because if the mother literally does nothing, the baby will be born. The question at hand is does the mother have the right to take the action of killing another human being simply because he/she resides inside her. As far as the slavery analogy goes, it doesn't hold up either (except for perhaps rape) as people don't become slaves by engaging in behavior that causes another to become their master.

Further, saying 'human being' is a bit less black and white than what you've stated considering 20-25% of all pregnancies in the US end in miscarriage.
And those people who die via miscarriage are still human beings, just like any other human being who lives and dies. They are no less human simply because they happen to die inside their mothers.

Don't misunderstand me....as I've stated frequently: Abortion is murder. They are not fetuses, but babies. It is abhorrent to my religious beliefs and is morally wrong....but I cannot force my morals on other people.
So if a parent decides that they want to kill an already born baby, would that violate your religious beliefs and be morally wrong? Would you still do nothing?

Bodily autonomy is something we have or we don't. You can't claim it in one instance and not in another. To argue that the state has authority over our bodies is to accept all the usurpations of our other enumerated rights that have occurred as a consequence of such a stance.
Babies are unique human beings who have bodily autonomy, no different than their mothers. Liberty does not depend on a willing to allow the killing of the unborn.

There is also the issue (which you pointed out) that the fetus has no choice in the matter. On the other hand, it has no consciousness either, so it's totally unaware of the scenario, and there is no 'person' there yet to protect--just the likelihood (not certainty) of one developing.
This is the argument that if you kill someone and they don't know they've been killed then it isn't murder. A just born baby doesn't understand that they're now alive and will some day die.

I wonder how the ethical issues could change if we developed technologies that can keep the fetus alive outside the mother's body?
The right to life or any other rights do not depend on technology or wealth. They are inherent to us as human beings.

What if a charity group just offered to artificially incubate the fetus, so the mother could 'abort' without killing the child? Would that satisfy both sides, because the woman could end her pregnancy and walk away, but the child would still have the chance of being born?
It would certainly satisfy the pro-life side, but would not satisfy those who advocate the most for abortion. To them abortion is a religious sacrament that must performed as often as possible. We are a long way from the days when safe, legal and rare was the mantra.

All this said, I do appreciate that we can have a civilized discussion on this subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
The other difference is that I have full knowledge up front that if your friend shows up, he can't leave because he'll die. Therefore, if I invite you I assume the moral risk of protecting your friend if he happens to show up.


This is a variation on the violinist argument. It's probably the best argument to be made, but it's a fantasy dreamed up to create a scenario to justify abortion. Here's a decent video discussing the violinist argument.


I don't believe there is a such thing as positive rights. If you're ability to do something depends on another's ability to pay, then it's not a right. It's socialism. In this case I think that it's a long stretch to equate the two because if the mother literally does nothing, the baby will be born. The question at hand is does the mother have the right to take the action of killing another human being simply because he/she resides inside her. As far as the slavery analogy goes, it doesn't hold up either (except for perhaps rape) as people don't become slaves by engaging in behavior that causes another to become their master.


And those people who die via miscarriage are still human beings, just like any other human being who lives and dies. They are no less human simply because they happen to die inside their mothers.


So if a parent decides that they want to kill an already born baby, would that violate your religious beliefs and be morally wrong? Would you still do nothing?


Babies are unique human beings who have bodily autonomy, no different than their mothers. Liberty does not depend on a willing to allow the killing of the unborn.


This is the argument that if you kill someone and they don't know they've been killed then it isn't murder. A just born baby doesn't understand that they're now alive and will some day die.


The right to life or any other rights do not depend on technology or wealth. They are inherent to us as human beings.


It would certainly satisfy the pro-life side, but would not satisfy those who advocate the most for abortion. To them abortion is a religious sacrament that must performed as often as possible. We are a long way from the days when safe, legal and rare was the mantra.

All this said, I do appreciate that we can have a civilized discussion on this subject.
And do you honestly think that the woman believes she'll become pregnant in the vast majority of cases? Of course not....or they wouldn't engage in the behavior unless it was to 'entrap' the man. Her only two outcomes if she's trying to succeed at becoming pregnant are to keep the baby (thus no abortion) or get the money for an abortion and hope there's a mark up to garner a profit. Again, not real likely in either scenario.

Exactly. A positive right is socialism at best....slavery at worst. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion b/c it's against his moral beliefs and he's forced to b/c the woman has a 'supposed right' to it (as has been the case in terms of it incorrectly being called a 'right' for the last 48 or so years), even if he's paid, he's still being forced. That amounts to enslaving him to perform a function for her to exercise that right. We clearly disagree about what constitutes enslavement....aka forced labor, subjugation, bondage.

You failed to address the 'if I'm inside you....you can't kick me out until I say so' part....that's rape just about any way you slice it. Even if the person being penetrated originally asked for it.

No, the founders chose BIRTH as the point at which rights are bestowed upon us. They could have easily done it at conception, but I'd wager the infant mortality and miscarriage rate factored in to why they drew the line where they did.

They cannot survive outside the womb without serious medical intervention (in terms of current medical technology) until 20 weeks at a minimum....so again, a socialistic system would be required to not only keep them alive, but also raise them. We need to seriously contemplate who's paying for that and the logical outcomes...so yes, a right to life does depend on wealth and technology to an extent. The DoI doesn't say you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....and that you will be provided everything needed for that life. Again, if that were the promise, that would be socialism....with all its associated problems and the enslavement of those who must work to provide it for those who cannot/will not.

I actually believe that the vast majority of pro-choice folks would agree with that (artificial incubation) too....but invariably, the question of "who's going to pay for it?"...would come up.

Where do you stand again on the War on Drugs and bodily autonomy in that instance? I can't say for sure I remember.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
This is the argument that if you kill someone and they don't know they've been killed then it isn't murder. A just born baby doesn't understand that they're now alive and will some day die.
It's not so much that they don't know they've been killed. It's that they're never even aware they are alive.

The 'newborn baby' analogy is a more logical way to analyze the issue, because the newborn really will die without continuous intervention and care. The most important difference is that the newborn can receive that care from any number of different people, where the unborn can receive it only from one specific person. Then we have the question of whether that one specific person should be held responsible for the child's care in either case (unborn or newborn), as well as the question of whether another specific person (the father) should be equally responsible for providing that care.


All this said, I do appreciate that we can have a civilized discussion on this subject.
Definitely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
It would certainly satisfy the pro-life side, but would not satisfy those who advocate the most for abortion. To them abortion is a religious sacrament that must performed as often as possible. We are a long way from the days when safe, legal and rare was the mantra.
I think you may be stereotyping the pro-choice side unfairly. I know many pro choice people, and none of them think abortions should be performed as often as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The other difference is that I have full knowledge up front that if your friend shows up, he can't leave because he'll die. Therefore, if I invite you I assume the moral risk of protecting your friend if he happens to show up.
As Sean said, there is only a small chance of the friend showing up. Young people in that situation are generally just (foolishly) crossing their fingers and hoping the friend doesn't come along. I've certainly been young and stupid, and made plenty of risky decisions. That doesn't mean I wanted them to turn out badly for me--I was just willing to run the risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
And do you honestly think that the woman believes she'll become pregnant in the vast majority of cases? Of course not....
They make a decision to gamble knowing the odds are in their favor. The thing is that if you gamble enough, you'll lose. Regardless, it doesn't matter because they've created a life and therefore have the moral obligation not to kill him or her.

Exactly. A positive right is socialism at best....slavery at worst. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion b/c it's against his moral beliefs and he's forced to b/c the woman has a 'supposed right' to it (as has been the case in terms of it incorrectly being called a 'right' for the last 48 or so years), even if he's paid, he's still being forced. That amounts to enslaving him to perform a function for her to exercise that right. We clearly disagree about what constitutes enslavement....aka forced labor, subjugation, bondage.
I never made the point that doctors should be forced to perform abortions, so I think that I've misunderstood what you're trying to convey here.

You failed to address the 'if I'm inside you....you can't kick me out until I say so' part....that's rape just about any way you slice it. Even if the person being penetrated originally asked for it.
I've heard radical (so called) feminists claim that all sex is rape, but this is actually the first time that I've heard of pregnancy being equated to rape.

No, the founders chose BIRTH as the point at which rights are bestowed upon us. They could have easily done it at conception, but I'd wager the infant mortality and miscarriage rate factored in to why they drew the line where they did.
What they did or didn't do has nothing to do with the scientific fact of when a unique human life begins. Even at birth, very few rights were recognized. That wasn't until adulthood. Even still, people throughout history killing pregnant women have been charged with two counts of murder.

We need to seriously contemplate who's paying for that and the logical outcomes...so yes, a right to life does depend on wealth and technology to an extent.
The debate about abortion is in regard to if another has a right to deliberately kill an unborn child. That's different than the debate about if a 3rd party has an obligation to provide services or funds to keep another alive.

I actually believe that the vast majority of pro-choice folks would agree with that (artificial incubation) too....but invariably, the question of "who's going to pay for it?"...would come up.
I'd pony up.

I think you may be stereotyping the pro-choice side unfairly. I know many pro choice people, and none of them think abortions should be performed as often as possible.
I intentionally said "those who advocate most for abortion". Most who are less driven on the issue look at it as the lesser of two evils.

As Sean said, there is only a small chance of the friend showing up. Young people in that situation are generally just (foolishly) crossing their fingers and hoping the friend doesn't come along. I've certainly been young and stupid, and made plenty of risky decisions. That doesn't mean I wanted them to turn out badly for me--I was just willing to run the risk.
Great, but that does not really diminish the human lives that are created at conception.

I've had three friends who have had an abortion. Two have lived with regret for over thirty years because they each pretty quickly realized the truth of what they did. It's sad to discuss it with them as there's nothing to make the pain go away. These two are adamantly pro-life. The third friend pretty much freaked out within a couple of years and is now crazy and angry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The debate about abortion is in regard to if another has a right to deliberately kill an unborn child. That's different than the debate about if a 3rd party has an obligation to provide services or funds to keep another alive.
I think there are actually some similarities. Does the mother have an obligation to provide services to keep the child alive? Do parents have an obligation to provide for their children?

In general, most people in our society accept that parents do have an obligation to provide for their children. The flip side of that is that the parents have certain rights with regard to their children, and a widely recognized right to dictate the terms of their child's life.

The question is where the balance of these rights and obligations lie. If your child is (random example) 15 years old, you have to do less providing for them than if they are 3, but at the same time you accept that you will have less control over them. Effectively, the younger the child is, the more obligation you have to care, but the greater your control over them. When a child is in utero, the mother is required to care for them in every imaginable way--does she then also have the right to exercise complete control (including power of life and death)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
They make a decision to gamble knowing the odds are in their favor. The thing is that if you gamble enough, you'll lose. Regardless, it doesn't matter because they've created a life and therefore have the moral obligation not to kill him or her.


I never made the point that doctors should be forced to perform abortions, so I think that I've misunderstood what you're trying to convey here.


I've heard radical (so called) feminists claim that all sex is rape, but this is actually the first time that I've heard of pregnancy being equated to rape.


What they did or didn't do has nothing to do with the scientific fact of when a unique human life begins. Even at birth, very few rights were recognized. That wasn't until adulthood. Even still, people throughout history killing pregnant women have been charged with two counts of murder.


The debate about abortion is in regard to if another has a right to deliberately kill an unborn child. That's different than the debate about if a 3rd party has an obligation to provide services or funds to keep another alive.


I'd pony up.


I intentionally said "those who advocate most for abortion". Most who are less driven on the issue look at it as the lesser of two evils.


Great, but that does not really diminish the human lives that are created at conception.

I've had three friends who have had an abortion. Two have lived with regret for over thirty years because they each pretty quickly realized the truth of what they did. It's sad to discuss it with them as there's nothing to make the pain go away. These two are adamantly pro-life. The third friend pretty much freaked out within a couple of years and is now crazy and angry.
So by that logic (created a life therefore there's a moral obligation created)...the IUD should be outlawed as well as RU-486/Morning After/Plan B. Just curious where you stand on this (and the drug war since you didn't answer that).

The doctor example was the logical conclusion of "positive" rights....which you call "socialism" instead but it's still the same thing.

If I don't want you in my body any longer and you refuse to remove yourself until you're ready/finished/whatever....that's rape. My comment was not in response to something you said specifically, it was to the varied themes from conservatives that say "My body, my choice" isn't legitimate b/c the baby's body is its own. So is the rapist's.

Just b/c life 'begins' doesn't mean it will come to fruition. In fact, about 1/4 of the time in the US...it doesn't. Again, potentiality isn't actualization.

No, that's what the debate is about FOR YOU; not necessarily for someone else who says its about having control over their own body. Several times you've reference morality in this discussion, but you have to realize your morality isn't someone else's either. You consider it murder as do I. Others don't see it that way.

Some won't pony up. Some will view it as "not my kid, not my business". But when tax dollars are in play....we all pay regardless of our position and frankly, this is where Christian charity should come in as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I think there are actually some similarities. Does the mother have an obligation to provide services to keep the child alive? Do parents have an obligation to provide for their children?
Morally yes, but legally no if they decide to give up all parental rights. In most states children can legally be abandoned without consequence.

When a child is in utero, the mother is required to care for them in every imaginable way--does she then also have the right to exercise complete control (including power of life and death)?
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Babies are much more work when they come out than they are when they're inside the woman.

So by that logic (created a life therefore there's a moral obligation created)...the IUD should be outlawed as well as RU-486/Morning After/Plan B. Just curious where you stand on this (and the drug war since you didn't answer that).
Anything that prevents conception is perfectly fine. Anything that is used to intentionally end a pregnancy is the taking of a life. As far as the war on drugs goes, I'm in favor of preventing predators from addicting and poisoning others. I think most people would agree that fentanyl should be illegal for recreational use, but caffeine should be legal. The real question for most people is where we draw the line. In order to be free, I don't have to accept rampant drug use like they have in San Francisco and Portland. Addicts are slaves.

If I don't want you in my body any longer and you refuse to remove yourself until you're ready/finished/whatever....that's rape. My comment was not in response to something you said specifically, it was to the varied themes from conservatives that say "My body, my choice" isn't legitimate b/c the baby's body is its own. So is the rapist's.
Equating an unwanted pregnancy to rape is absurd on its face and diminishes actual rape.

Just b/c life 'begins' doesn't mean it will come to fruition. In fact, about 1/4 of the time in the US...it doesn't. Again, potentiality isn't actualization.
I never said potential life. After conception there is life. People die all the time. It doesn't mean that they were really alive before they died. The same holds true for the unborn.

Several times you've reference morality in this discussion, but you have to realize your morality isn't someone else's either. You consider it murder as do I. Others don't see it that way.
Right. Some people don't have morality or their morality is different. They're just wrong. For example, some people think slavery is moral. I don't and I would do everything in my power to prevent it from occurring. If everyone makes up their morality and it is equality valid, then there is in essence no morality. This is akin to the left's mantra about "my truth". There are no such things as multiple truths. If everything is true just because someone declares it so, then the concept of truth has no meaning.

Some won't pony up. Some will view it as "not my kid, not my business". But when tax dollars are in play....we all pay regardless of our position and frankly, this is where Christian charity should come in as well.
Absolutely. The government should not be in the charity business. Private charities are far more efficient and hold recipients accountable. Government is inefficient and actually creates more dependency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
Morally yes, but legally no if they decide to give up all parental rights. In most states children can legally be abandoned without consequence.


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Babies are much more work when they come out than they are when they're inside the woman.


Anything that prevents conception is perfectly fine. Anything that is used to intentionally end a pregnancy is the taking of a life. As far as the war on drugs goes, I'm in favor of preventing predators from addicting and poisoning others. I think most people would agree that fentanyl should be illegal for recreational use, but caffeine should be legal. The real question for most people is where we draw the line. In order to be free, I don't have to accept rampant drug use like they have in San Francisco and Portland. Addicts are slaves.


Equating an unwanted pregnancy to rape is absurd on its face and diminishes actual rape.


I never said potential life. After conception there is life. People die all the time. It doesn't mean that they were really alive before they died. The same holds true for the unborn.


Right. Some people don't have morality or their morality is different. They're just wrong. For example, some people think slavery is moral. I don't and I would do everything in my power to prevent it from occurring. If everyone makes up their morality and it is equality valid, then there is in essence no morality. This is akin to the left's mantra about "my truth". There are no such things as multiple truths. If everything is true just because someone declares it so, then the concept of truth has no meaning.


Absolutely. The government should not be in the charity business. Private charities are far more efficient and hold recipients accountable. Government is inefficient and actually creates more dependency.
While the debate has remained civil, the level of condescension should probably be toned down a bit. I apologize if I've come off that way.

So a more direct answer from you is you'd seek to ban IUDs and the morning after pills. At least that's what I'm taking away from your comment. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

As for the WoD....you only hold 'dealers' accountable....not users?

Obviously unwanted pregnancy isn't actual rape. It's an analogy which is defined as, "A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.". You can claim it's absurd and be indignant about it 'diminishing' actual rape....but I never said unwanted pregnancy was actual rape. What I said was 'actual' rape....was; i.e., not removing yourself from a woman's body when she requests it...that's true and relevant when one side claims, "My body, my choice" isn't legitimate.

Agreed. I said potential, b/c it matters. Just b/c one becomes pregnant doesn't mean it will result in a live baby being born with the rights we currently associate with such a birth.

The pronouncement on your part that 'they're just wrong' is indicative of the entire problem with your line of thought. You act as if YOU and those that agree with you are the sole proprietors of what is (or should be deemed) right/moral. While I agree there are far too many shades of grey when talking of concrete concepts, we disagree that when it comes to matters of morality/faith there is but one answer.

We agree on that final point. Charity has been left far behind in the discussion largely b/c of government intrusion into the realm of what should be the spiritual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Babies are much more work when they come out than they are when they're inside the woman.
I've never had a baby inside me, but I'm going to guess that there will be some disagreement on this point. When my wife was pregnant, she literally couldn't put our daughter down. After birth, she could at least let me take care of the baby so she could get some rest. To me, carrying the child in utero is pretty much the definition of '24-7 care'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
So a more direct answer from you is you'd seek to ban IUDs and the morning after pills. At least that's what I'm taking away from your comment. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
I don't think contraception should be illegal. My understanding of IUD's is that they are contraception. If a morning after pill prevents conception, then I'm fine with it as it doesn't end a life. If it's used to end a pregnancy, then it should be illegal.

As for the WoD....you only hold 'dealers' accountable....not users?
Both are accountable, but the predators (dealers in the illicit drug example or abortionists in the abortion example) hold a higher degree of accountability.

Obviously unwanted pregnancy isn't actual rape. It's an analogy which is defined as, "A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.". You can claim it's absurd and be indignant about it 'diminishing' actual rape....but I never said unwanted pregnancy was actual rape. What I said was 'actual' rape....was; i.e., not removing yourself from a woman's body when she requests it...that's true and relevant when one side claims, "My body, my choice" isn't legitimate.
A man can avoid the act of rape by not entering a woman when she says so or getting out if she changes her mind mid stream. Comparing a man who lives outside to a baby who lives inside and can't possible make the same choice is simply a bad analogy. The baby has no choice and commits no crime by being there.

Agreed. I said potential, b/c it matters. Just b/c one becomes pregnant doesn't mean it will result in a live baby being born with the rights we currently associate with such a birth.
Rights expand as humans grow. The right to life begins at conception. The right to free speech begins sometime after we learn to talk but isn't fully instituted until we're legal adults.

The pronouncement on your part that 'they're just wrong' is indicative of the entire problem with your line of thought. You act as if YOU and those that agree with you are the sole proprietors of what is (or should be deemed) right/moral. While I agree there are far too many shades of grey when talking of concrete concepts, we disagree that when it comes to matters of morality/faith there is but one answer.
I endeavor to explain my views to others and convince them to change their views. This is all predicated on the concept that their is truth & deceit, good & evil. When logic tells me that a viewpoint is truthful & good, then I'll logically believe that it is right. When logic tells me that a viewpoint is deceitful and/or evil, then I'll logically believe that it is wrong. I can say with confidence that people who believe in sex with children is moral are wrong. Likewise, I can say that those who are ok with the killing of the unborn are also wrong. If one doesn't accept the concepts of right & wrong, truth & deceit, good & evil, then no judgements about the actions of self or others can be made.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top