You can imagine that anyone who respects the right of a woman to make private decisions concerning her own womb before an actual other person has developed, with the help of trusted medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones as she chooses, rather than have the State, politicians and bureaucrats, seize control of her womb and dictate to her, is a "Don Quixote" beset by whatever "demented bogeymen" you fancy. Advanced western democracies, overwhelmingly, support the woman's rights over the State imposing control over her, either to proscribe or require abortion.
I actually consider all this rhetoric that is not really argumentative to be more hyperbolic, and essentially the type of things Alex Jones would say. Every time you talk about State control of wombs I laugh. nobody outside of your own imaginary boogeymen is suggesting that. okay maybe it's the same people who are putting chemicals in the water that turn the frogs gay. Lol That's right Don Quixote go slay those giants.
That's a relief. There are those who appear to want to impose their peculiar notions upon others via State coercion, rather than respecting the right of others to make personal decisions for themselves. The consensus that the State should not intrude before fetal viability, an accommodation that may not satisfy extreme Statists, nor extreme anti-Statists, respects the woman's control of her womb (in consultation with her trusted medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones) whilst recognizing societal responsibility after the gestative process has resulted in the development of an actual, independent person. The freedom to believe and preach the homunculus theory, that an itty-bitty person appears instantly at conception, is also one that should not be denied by the State. What those folks must not be allowed to do, if their suasive powers fail, is to then force their notion upon everyone else.
yeah your opponents are rarely is crazy as you build them up to be in your own mind. no there's not this is called rhetoric it is designed to persuade people not convey evidence. Sure there are a few Fringe coupes out there that one the US to be a theocracy or a socialist dictatorship. And with these people aren't any kind of threat to anyting. Probably percentage-wise less than the margin of error. None this is relevant and most of it seems rhetorical. The discussion is not about what the state has the power to do it's about an individual and what is right and wrong. pro-life people think it's wrong.
As long as you do not wish to have the State impose itself upon women, in lieu of their having the freedom to make personal decisions for themselves, in consultation with trusted medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones, there is no problem. Anyone who imagines that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells measures State intrusion is not likely to sell his notion in an advanced, western democracy.
Americans overwhelmingly support a woman's right to make a personal decision concerning the early stages of her pregnancy, in consultation with her medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones, over the State dictating to her one way or another. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2553 http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
No idea what you are talking about. Or where you came up with this crazy rhetoric. The argument is pro life values life.
Who said morality was subjective? Morality is easily derived from logical thinking. It is illogical to worry about the suffering or interest of something with no mental existence. It makes no sense. Sane people are pretty consistent in not worrying about the rights of inanimate objects, and it's because it's obvious that they have no mental existence. People have more trouble with pre-conscious fetuses because they erroneously equate a heartbeat with a human being and note that a fetus looks like a baby. But they're simply mistaken. Usually it's from a lack of medical knowledge, but there are neurologists who are pro-life, and it would be interesting to see where they're coming from. Probably religion - the usual source of illogical, pseudo-morality.
Reality. logical thinking is subjective. nobody's worrying about the suffering or interest their wording about the existence. and this is the beginning of human life so it's a logical not to consider its existence. first off nobody's talking about worrying about it I just talking about not killing it. Second it is not an ad of an object like a rock. A rock no matter what you do to it it will never become a person, a fertilized egg if you leave it alone it has the potential to become a person. So I think it's interesting you invoke morality here but then talk about the beginning of Life as though it is an inanimate object. It isn't inanimate objects don't become people. I don't think people in general use your arbitrary measure of value. You may think it is illogical for someone to consider life at its beginning or through stages before it develops any kind of mental faculties but that is your opinion and it's based on however you came to hold it.
These are not arguments. Even Jesus said to do unto others as you would have them do to you. While not perfect advice, it's an example of a common core to moral ideas that morality involves the impact upon other persons. The main difference is that religions involve the idea of a soul, and imaginary gods. Logically, other persons do not exist unless they have a mind, because if they lack a mind they're no different morally from inanimate objects that cannot think or suffer. It exists, but it's not the beginning of a mental existence, or personhood. The only sense in which it's a new life is the unique set of DNA, but then identical twins or clones do not have this and yet morally you don't treat somebody as less of a person because they're a twin... or a clone. The point was that inanimate objects and embryos both lack minds and cannot suffer or mentally exist. Also, if you leave a fertilized egg alone, it will not develop. It requires the extraordinary intervention of the mother's body to allow the egg to become a baby. This intervention is so extraordinary, that we are not yet sophisticated enough to replicate it. Thirdly, it would require no more technology to create clones from any of your nucleated cells, but we don't mourn their loss because, while human and alive, they are not conscious persons. The fertilized egg is no more or less alive than unfertilized eggs and sperm. They're all alive and human, but do not have minds and so are not persons with rights. I don't care what people in general use. People in general have been wrong about a lot of things historically. There's a reason ad populum is a logical fallacy. What else could you possibly base morality on besides the effect of actions on other beings capable of suffering and a mental existence? The only other standard I've even heard of is the will of the imaginary gods in religions. But their existence is doubtful. It is illogical to base any moral standard on "life." We constantly and inevitably extinguish non-human life when we eat plants, wash our hands, etc. Fortunately, bacteria and plants don't have minds. Now if we restrict our concerns to human life, well each of your cells are alive and human but cutting your skin isn't homicide because those cells do not have their own minds - they're only relevant to the extent that you, the human being, need them. And again, technology of a lower level than that required to produce an artificial womb can induce pluripotency in skin cells, making clones out of them that can then become new human beings (for now, it would require a surrogate womb). Despite not having a unique set of DNA, once conscious they would be independent persons with their own rights, not unlike identical twins.
TL DR. My point still remains morality is subjective. And people are concerned about the survival of a fertilized egg because they turn into humans.
And they can be. About their own. But not the eggs of the entire world. Afterall, it's all subjective.
There is no "Spark" - nor is there a "moment of conception" - The spark happens 24 weeks later when the wiring of the brain gets completed and the lights turn on.
It might turn into a human - chances are it will not - that's the way nature goes. There is no harm in stopping the process of creation prior to the creation of a human.
Do they have a right to vote then? So an adult gets his " lights" turned off, by accident or whatever, you believe euthanasia is appropriate regardless of the potential they come back on? You disregard the potential? I get it.
Since you take the initiative to quote Jesus and my Faith which you mock....I will quote the Prophet Jeremiah who foreshadowed the promises of Jesus when he said, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart". That entails the Christian tenant of Faith that life has potential and purpose. You may now continue your mockery.
One can fancy and preach that a microscopic, mindless entity in a woman's womb is a person without demanding that the State intrude and impose such a notion upon the woman and everyone else. It is when those who hold such an idea try to force it upon everyone else that the problem arises. The 7 states where the majority support State control of wombs (as opposed to respecting personal freedom in the matter) are all among the 10 least-educated states in the nation (https://wallethub.com/edu/e/most-educated-states/31075/) indicates a significant correlation. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...on/ft_20-01-17_abortionstates2_majoritymap_a/
Anti abortionists are rarely “pro life”. They are pro fetus. They tend to take a much more hands-off position once the “life” goes out into the world. Many support the death penalty and war and pollution generating machines and their own convenience over the lives of innocent bystanders and incidental casualties.
Sorry. Once God forms every uterus perfectly, once God makes every fertilized egg reach maturity, once God never allows another miscarriage - then we can talk about God’s wishes on this issue. Until then you really have no argument that I can’t counter with, “It was God’s plan that the woman not carry to term ...”.
I'm pro-choice, and I think abortion should remain legal. I am also sympathetic to the argument that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for abortions. All that said, the leftists really do come off looking like a wacky fetus-murdering death cult when they pull stunts like this. I mean, can you at least try and pretend like you're not happy-go-lucky fetus-harvesting ghouls? A little decorum would be nice.
Here you go with the state sanctioning nonsense again no idea what you're talkin about please talk and less rhetoric. You're not convincing me with this highly emotional nonsense.
well it's kind of like saying pro-choice people are anti life. Demonizing doesn't work on me. the discussion is about abortion not child care. I don't think anybody supports war for the sake of it. And everyone who travels via automobile aircraft or train, or receives goods that were brought to them by automobile aircraft or train supports pollution generating machines. So unless you're losing like someone did in the 17th century you do too.
