Abortion Rights

#826
#826
therealUT said:
No, you can say abortion is morally wrong. But, unless you are committed to the government prohibiting anything and everything that is morally wrong, then you need other reasons for legal prohibition.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. The moral issue is essentially murder. I would say that the government could prohibit murder, which they do, and not prohibit morally unacceptable vices such as tobacco and alcohol, which they don't.
 
#828
#828
82_VOL_83 said:
I have to disagree here. The moral issue is essentially murder. I would say that the government could prohibit murder, which they do, and not prohibit morally unacceptable vices such as tobacco and alcohol, which they don't.
Click to expand...

There are great non-moral reasons for prohibiting murder (viz., murders that go unpunished by the state lead to vendettas and, then, all of society is threatened).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#829
#829
therealUT said:
There are great non-moral reasons for prohibiting murder (viz., murders that go unpunished by the state lead to vendettas and, then, all of society is threatened).
Click to expand...

I agree, however, I was simply replying to your postulation that if one moral issue is government controlled, all had to be.
 
#830
#830
82_VOL_83 said:
I agree, however, I was simply replying to your postulation that if one moral issue is government controlled, all had to be.
Click to expand...

My position is that if the reason for the government control is merely because it is morally wrong, then consistency requires supporting government prohibition for all those things you believe are morally wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#831
#831
Roustabout said:
I've already answered you on this.
It's a consensus because it's a fact, not a fact because it's a consensus. Conception being the first stage of human development is testable, repeatable and observable. Hell, you're a case study.
Click to expand...

CVmCPF-VAAAFhXY.jpg


I'm concerned about the foundation of that test not being a fact (i.e. what constitutes life). Youre begging the question by assuming that it is. It certainly isn't objectively true, which makes it invalid in your worldview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#832
#832
Wafflestomper said:
CVmCPF-VAAAFhXY.jpg


I'm concerned about the foundation of that test not being a fact (i.e. what constitutes life). Youre begging the question by assuming that it is. It certainly isn't objectively true, which makes it invalid in your worldview.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. How is it question begging?
 
#833
#833
Roustabout said:
So you're open to the idea of infanticide up to 4 years of age?

Hoppity hop.
Click to expand...

As usual your off. How you could possibly come up with I agree with infantcide up to 4 years is beyond me. Especially considering we went 15 rounds in this thread where I stated, numerous upon numerous times, I draw the line at brain activity and capacity to feel pain.

Speaking of which, and why I liked the post so much, rabbit holes are exactly what we went that 15 rounds over. I was willing to go down your hole of foundational rights or whatever, and you weren’t on mine with defining personhood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#835
#835
rjd970 said:
As usual your off. How you could possibly come up with I agree with infantcide up to 4 years is beyond me. Especially considering we went 15 rounds in this thread where I stated, numerous upon numerous times, I draw the line at brain activity and capacity to feel pain.

Speaking of which, and why I liked the post so much, rabbit holes are exactly what we went that 15 rounds over. I was willing to go down your hole of foundational rights or whatever, and you weren’t on mine with defining personhood.
Click to expand...
So, you won't consider it, but you like TRUTs statement where he has attempted to paint me as unwilling to examine my own position, because I won't consider it either.

You sir, are brilliant.
 
#837
#837
Roustabout said:
So, you won't consider it, but you like TRUTs statement where he has attempted to paint me as unwilling to examine my own position, because I won't consider it either.

You sir, are brilliant.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Again.

Trut asked you to define personhood and you wouldn’t. Until you do that, I standby my like and what trut says ring true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#839
#839
Wafflestomper said:
Would you have to assume what constitutes life to test when life begins?
Click to expand...

Cells exist in one of three states, dead, alive, and dormant. If a fertilized egg is splitting, I would postulate given the three conditions that it is alive.
 
Last edited:
#841
#841
Wafflestomper said:
These are your standards, remember? Must be objectively grounded to be valid.
Click to expand...

I don't determine what is objectively true. But, thanks for trying to shift the burden.

Conception is the first stage of human development. That's a fact, and one I'm honestly at a loss as to why you would deny.
 
Last edited:
#843
#843
Roustabout said:
I don't determine what is objectively true. But, thanks for trying to shift the burden.

Conception is the first stage of human development. That's a fact, and one I'm honestly at a loss as to why you would deny.
Click to expand...

You still don't seem to understand the nature of the objection. I don't GAF when life (or human development) begins because I don't think it's significant.

It's hypocritical that you don't think you need objective grounding for your assertions on this topic but believe those who disagree with you do. At least try to be consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#844
#844
Wafflestomper said:
You still don't seem to understand the nature of the objection. I don't GAF when life (or human development) begins because I don't think it's significant.

It's hypocritical that you don't think you need objective grounding for your assertions on this topic but believe those who disagree with you do. At least try to be consistent.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it. I'm not arguing WHEN personhood begins. So, if someone makes a claim, "person's have rights" then they have an obligation to ground both personhood and a source of rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#845
#845
Roustabout said:
No, you don't get it. I'm not arguing WHEN personhood begins. So, if someone makes a claim, "person's have rights" then they have an obligation to ground both personhood and a source of rights.
Click to expand...

I've given my criteria for personhood.

If anything has rights, it's persons. For, nothing else is all that special.

Some think that all sentient beings have rights. Now, this might help one argue against abortion, but at the cost of being a vegetarian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#846
#846
Roustabout said:
No, you don't get it. I'm not arguing WHEN personhood begins. So, if someone makes a claim, "person's have rights" then they have an obligation to ground both personhood and a source of rights.
Click to expand...

This, since the question I thought the discussion was about was when does life begin.
 
#848
#848
Roustabout said:
No, you don't get it. I'm not arguing WHEN personhood begins. So, if someone makes a claim, "person's have rights" then they have an obligation to ground both personhood and a source of rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that right now either--I'm arguing that you have arbitrary standards for what needs to be objectively grounded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top