It's not as if a foetus has anything to think about. There is no record of anybody remembering being a foetus or a newborn ( apart from liars). Apart from that, we don't really associate the possibility of meaningful thought with personhood, which is why people with brain damage are still people. Using meaningful thought or brain function as a criteria for establishing personhood would create merry hell with the law and clog up the courts even more than they are already. Moreover, it's treating the foetus as a separate human entity, which it isn't. It isn't possible to test the brain function of a foetus without putting the pregnant woman through a medical examination. That is assault. The government is doing that when they limit abortion at any time before birth. Very late term abortions are rare - and that's not because of the law, but because they aren't wanted. They are awful. Even mid-term abortions are uncommon, because they are horrible for the woman to undergo. More often than not, they are carried out because an abnormality has been detected - especially in countries where abortion is freely available. Those few women and girls who have them for other reasons need the protection of the law. Their reasons are none of our business.
One can only hope that the law makers will ensure the 1st Amendment is adhered to. - - - Updated - - - Not even relevant to abortion, for one the person drowning is not directly imposing on your autonomy, for another you actually have no legal responsibility to help that person . .as far as morally is concerned then that is down to each individual person.
First of all let me be clear that I personally believe the government should stay out of the decision and stick with the threshold that our laws apply to persons who are born. Laws that are intended to judge the decision of the pregnant woman should be struck down because (1) before the brain has the capacity for thought pro-lifers can only pretend the fetus is a person and (2) after the brain has the capacity for thought there is no logical reason to believe the mother is NOT going to be the best advocate for that fetus in the last few weeks before birth. I agree that it is unlikely that the fetus is actually using its capacity for meaningful thought, so (as a couple of posters have indicated) they might not actually pass a "thought" test until sometime after birth, but my point was to explore a threshold that pro-lifers would accept for giving the fetus the "benefit of a doubt" (since "benefit of a doubt" is the ONLY rationale I have seen here for pushing the threshold back to initial brain waves or heart beat or conception). If pro-life advocates cannot refute (with objective evidence) the fundamental requirement of a brain physically capable of thought, then they cannot use that "benefit of a doubt" to coerce politicians into pushing the threshold closer and closer to conception. I have never suggested using this as a guideline after birth (that was just an extrapolation from another poster intended to setup the strawman "if it does not work after birth then it cannot be applied before birth"). PS: With respect to clogging the courts. I agree that would be a mess. I did not mean each fetus should be measured. I was just suggesting (based on our understanding of when the bio-mechanics of the brain could first possibly support meaningful thought) that an abortion before that point could not possibly risk interfering with another individual "person" so (to the pro-lifers) stop trying to push the threshold back even earlier than that point.
This is a very poor argument. First your analogy is not a good one. Iron ore or coal or silver are limited natural resources. We have an unlimited supply of humans. We can create as many as we like. A better analogy would be compare to spilling a few drops of water while having a drink. Then there is the problem of individual liberty. Your claim is that we should throw out individual liberty on the basis of some possible potential increase in human capital/ increase in human happiness. This is a hateful ideology to begin with - totalitarian communism - otherwise known as "Utilitarianism" - Justification for law on the basis of what will increase happiness for the collective -with no regard for individual liberty. The second problem is that this is actually fallacious utilitarianism in that it is quite likely that what you suggest will not increase happiness of the collective and a near certainty that it will not increase happiness on a global scale as overpopulation on this planet is having a negative effect on happiness. You are welcome to debate that the benefits of increasing the population further outweigh the negatives but - good luck with that.
I am going to address both posts .. first. OK - as a general rule Classical Liberalism states "no man wants to be ruled over by another". The Golden rule - in Hammurabi's law code at least far back as 1800 BC, taught by Buddha, Confucius and Jesus "Do unto others as you would have done to you/Treat others as you would be treated" or as applied to your statement "If you don't want others forcing their religious values and morals on you through physical violence (Law) then do not do the same to others" The caveat here - as in the enlightenment thinkers justification for giving some authority the power to punish - is that rights end where the nose of another begins. That to create civil society there must be punishment for those that would violate codes of conduct in relation to protection of others in society from direct harm (murder, theft, rape and so on) So there is a difference between 1) having a personal or religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through law. As far as personal belief is concerned - it is nearly impossible to determine which is more moral and ethical in the earliest stages of pregnancy. Later on things become more clear. Some consider contraception a moral/ethical crime. While I think this is absurd - from a strictly moral perspective one can make reasonable arguments in defense of this position. (not that my arguments would not be better of course .. but reasonable moral arguments can be made)
What happens when the woman, because it's her choice, chooses to have a kid she can't afford to support. Can you explain why those that say people shouldn't push their morals on someone have no problem pushing their own morals on others? For example, a woman, while doing with what she says is her body tells others/the government to butt out because it's her body, makes the choice to have a child she can't financially afford. When she can't feed, house, clothe, and provide the basics for her child and/or the sperm donor that helped her produce it isn't fulfilling his responsibility, why does she believe it's OK to demand the government force those of us she told to butt out of that choice to do so on her behalf? In other words, why is it that those not involved in the process suddenly become responsible for something we were expected to stay out of when the process was occurring? I don't care what she does as long as I'm not one of those expected to pay when she can't.
I think this is a poor argument in general. We do not get to choose - in general - that taxes do not go to things we do not like. If one has no children should their taxes go towards schools. Should someone who is anti-war be forced to fund the military through taxation ? The fact of the matter is that using tax dollars for abortion "Decreases" your tax bill. Bringing an unwanted child into a disfunctional and/or poor environment costs a whole lot more than an abortion. One can not say the same about military. Your argument in fact could be turned around - why should a couple or woman that can not financially afford a child be able to force financial responsibility on society by not terminating a pregnancy should it occur ? Your argument is more a pro abortion argument than an anti-abortion argument.
My argument is pro personal responsibility for a choice the person made. If the child has been born, the choice not to abort was an option not chosen. At that point, it’s no one else’s place to pay for that child but the one that made the choice. If she can’t and the sperm donor can’t, tough ****. As far as your question about taxes and the military, you do as long as the Constitution says so. When the Constitutions says food stamps, let me know.
Where does the constitution state that 1/3 of your tax dollars have to go to military ? Nowhere. Where does the constitution state that you have to pay taxes for schools roads police infrastructure and so on. We do not feed the poor because of some moral charity. The poor are fed because you do not want them revolting and killing you. You are painfully ignorant of history and sociology.
The part that fights tooth and nail against helping the poor while at the same time claims to cherish human life - even a single human cell - and claim to be followers of the teachings of Jesus.
Yeah I thought, sooner or later, when are you bleeding heart liberal’s would use the general welfare nonsense. Just as I’ve said, the military is a specifically delegated authority for Congress in the constitution. Nowhere, and I repeat nowhere, does the word food stamps appear. The way you look at it anything and everything some free loading the leech wants for nothing could be given to them by the taxpayers. That, simply, is a bad idea. I am curious to know why all of you claim to care so much about others aren’t out looking for them and supporting them with your own money instead of finding ways for someone else to be forced to pay for it.
The part that promotes personal responsibility for choices one makes him laugh. If a woman makes with her body the choice to have a child, feeding that child is not my responsibility when she can’t. Would you promote as people being able to make any choice they wore and when they can’t afford that choice the rest of us are supposed to be suddenly be responsible for something we were told to butt out of. If I burn out of the choice the responsibility is not mine when the person making it can’t pay for it.Something I have noticed all you bleeding hearts are willing to spend other peoples money and make yourself feel better about helping someone is unwilling to help themselves
I'm a fiscal conservative (old style prior to the religious right taking over) who believes in Republicanism and the Constitution. We have been over this a bunch of times already yet you keep repeating yourself as if we havn't. Taxation is used for many things not specifically designated in the Constitution. Further - the constitution does not give a blank check to military spending - it is for "Defense" of the homeland. If you want to live in nation that has no civil roads, infrastructure, sewage, water supply and so on ... you are welcome to your vision. I just do not share it.
Anyone that supports taxes the way you do he’s in he is anything but a fiscal conservative. Stop telling that lie. My vision is to Leah about what the Constitution says. Your vision is for the Constitution to say what you WANT it to say.
You can want what you like. What is moronic is thinking that an individual can dictate specifically where their taxes are to be spent based on their personal desires and I have given you a number of examples to which you have not managed a response. What is moronic is to repeat a premise over and over again thinking that this constitutes proof of claim. You have a responsibility to pay your taxes - whether or not you want to pay those taxes. What you are not responsible for is how those taxes are spent.
You are the one that is lying - lying to yourself I am the one who posted what the constitution actually says. You are the one making things up as you go along and avoiding responding to arguments that conflict with your unsupported claims. You are the one that is fiscally irresponsible - one that claims Total Military spending without limits is authorized by the constitution - aside from the fact that this claim is patent nonsense. The fact of the matter is that you love wealth redistribution - you are as left as they come. You try to justify this to yourself but the reality is that you love wealth redistribution but, only for things you agree with. You love big deficits and debt - as long as this money is going to things you agree with. You live in a world of hypocrisy where you think tax dollars should go to things that you agree with - but should not go to areas that others agree with. On the one hand you claim to care greatly about a single human cell - wailing and crying about the destruction of "human life"- but in the same breath you express hate for helping real living humans.
I don’t support policies that increase welafte. In fact, I’d get rid of it altogether and we’d see if those that claim to care so much for the poor actually do orbit it’s all talk.
Supporting a strong, well funded military doesn’t keep me from being a fiscal conservative. Since the Constitution makes no mention of hat is or isn’t too much and the founding fathers believed a strong military is a deterrent, your argument related to military spending carries no weight. As for welfare, since I’d do away with it totally, your claim that I support expanding it is even more invalid. If you care for the poor so much, give them all your money and **** about using mine.
...and you may never understand the difference between bodily autonomy( the right to our own bodies ) and the caring for, support, of children. They are two different, separate things. For example, people who have no children pay taxes that educate other people's children. That is what is best for the country. That's how successful countries are run.
This has been debated for some time in scientific circles as it is an arbitrary milestone. Every mammal has a brain and most are far more capable than even a Baby so it is more a matter of brain function than physiology. Brainwave patterns have been monitored in the fetus for similarity to those found in a human in thought and do not show up until the seventh or eighth month of gestation. Basically even at a bare minimum criteria the human fetus is not capable of doing the one thing that truly differentiates us from all other animals, we are slower, weaker, cant see as well, don't fly or stalk prey remotely as well as other animals....instead we think and a fetal human cannot.
