Abortion Rights

[LouderVol]

I am glad you asked. Her right to control her body takes precedent because the clump of cells has no ability to state a preference or the ability to exert control over its own body. It requires some third party, in this case you, to state that its preferences should trump that of the host body.

So a quadriplegic, and others who can't express themselves, or sustain themselves have no rights?

she chose to do an action which lead to the baby, say it with me, she is responsible for her actions.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

But it absolutely alters how one would answer based on the given options, and you know it.

In the hypothetical, if no one is pissed, nobody will take vengeance, etc...according to TRUTs assumption of a toddler age and younger child being property, his position is consistent. Everything in that hypothetical is property, and the car is the only thing that is his property, so he is saving it first...like most of us would. IF the child is viewed as property, that is 100% consistent and there is zero reason not to believe him.

In the real world, however, it probably won't go down that way, and he is saving the kid first.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

Well I didn't think so either, but apparently it is for you. Honestly rjd, you are making this way too difficult. You're interjecting "in the real world" in place of "realistically" (which is what I pointed out previously), and you're also adding assertions that were never part of the hypothetical.

You gave a hypothetical to try and corner TRUT into hypocrisy, TRUT answered it in a fully consistent way, and instead of accepting it for what it is, you call him a lier because it didn't work out the way you wanted.

I think of someone's pre-toddler age child as more that property no matter what age, just like you. But there is no reason at all to believe TRUT is lying and there is no inconsistency in what he is saying.

Yes... I gave a hypothetical, just as Trut initially gave a hypothetical. I've accepted it just fine (though you seem to have an issue with it for some reason) and I could not care less as to how it "worked out".

Neither of those hypotheticals (nor Trut's original post about a kid vs cat vs car) referenced the age of the kid or referred to the kid as being property. It is irrelevant to the hypothetical as posted, and personally I don't care if Trut views the kid as property or not. It does not change anything relative to the conversation at hand so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Should I now add that the car is an old rusted bucket that doesn't run and has no value? Again, if you want to argue a point then stick to what was referenced in the hypothetical and stop interjecting things to try and move the goalposts.

As to your final comments, I don't believe I've said anything about Trut being inconsistent. Nor have I accused him of being hypocritical.

The only thing I've said is that I believe Trut is of sound mind, and I don't believe that someone of sound mind would choose to have a kid repeatedly shot (regardless of the kid's age) when there are other options (the cat or the car) and there would be no vengeance (which is what Trut himself stipulated).

Do you disagree??? If not, then you would be declaring that Trut is not of sound mind, which I believe would be worse than saying he is lying to save face.

 

[Wafflestomper]

she chose to do an action which lead to the baby, say it with me, she is responsible for her actions.

And? How does that entail what she must do from that point?

 

[therealUT]

But it absolutely alters how one would answer based on the given options, and you know it.

In the hypothetical, if no one is pissed, nobody will take vengeance, etc...according to TRUTs assumption of a toddler age and younger child being property, his position is consistent. Everything in that hypothetical is property, and the car is the only thing that is his property, so he is saving it first...like most of us would. IF the child is viewed as property, that is 100% consistent and there is zero reason not to believe him.

In the real world, however, it probably won't go down that way, and he is saving the kid first.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

You gave a hypothetical to try and corner TRUT into hypocrisy, TRUT answered it in a fully consistent way, and instead of accepting it for what it is, you call him a lier because it didn't work out the way you wanted.

I think of someone's pre-toddler age child as more that property no matter what age, just like you. But there is no reason at all to believe TRUT is lying and there is no inconsistency in what he is saying.

If I was going to lie, don't you think I'd say non-repugnant and acceptable things?

The vast majority of people, whether pro- life or pro- choice, find my conclusions repugnant.

 

[LouderVol]

And? How does that entail what she must do from that point?

she eats cake, she can get fat.
she studies, she can get smart.
she has sex, she can get pregnant.

choices have consequences. sex has some very real, direct, consequences. she is the one who dictated it for herself.

and now her actions going forward impact another person so she is responsible beyond herself.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

she eats cake, she can get fat.
she studies, she can get smart.
she has sex, she can get pregnant.

choices have consequences. sex has some very real, direct, consequences. she is the one who dictated it for herself.

and now her actions going forward impact another person so she is responsible beyond herself.

But must she continue studying or eating?

So a quadriplegic, and others who can't express themselves, or sustain themselves have no rights?

You have a very low opinion of quadriplegics. I have a very dear friend who is a quadriplegic who drives, eats, expresses herself, has sex etc.

 

[LouderVol]

But must she continue studying or eating?



You have a very low opinion of quadriplegics. I have a very dear friend who is a quadriplegic who drives, eats, expresses herself, has sex etc.

good for her. you didn't answer my question.

what does duration have to do with anything? the consequence doesn't have to be a one off thing or short lived. its a life, its not a decision to be made lightly like choosing a diet after too much cake.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

good for her. you didn't answer my question.

what does duration have to do with anything? the consequence doesn't have to be a one off thing or short lived. its a life, its not a decision to be made lightly like choosing a diet after too much cake.

I have addressed your examples...

I simply do not believe that another being should be able to exert control over my body without my consent. It is really that old adage you quoted pages ago... your rights end where mine begin. I have should have the unfettered right to treat my body as I see fit.

 

[LouderVol]

I have addressed your examples...

I simply do not believe that another being should be able to exert control over my body without my consent. It is really that old adage you quoted pages ago... your rights end where mine begin. I have should have the unfettered right to treat my body as I see fit.

sure. I haven't tried to police the woman or her body. just protecting the baby. separate entity. we already legislate harm on another individual. I shoot myself and bullet goes thru me and hits another person I am still guilty of shooting them. my body my choice has no impact. a second party was involved in the actions I preformed on my body.

at the very least its manslaughter due to neglect. at worst its premeditated murder. *abortion not the baby dying.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

sure. I haven't tried to police the woman or her body. just protecting the baby. separate entity. we already legislate harm on another individual. I shoot myself and bullet goes thru me and hits another person I am still guilty of shooting them. my body my choice has no impact. a second party was involved in the actions I preformed on my body.

at the very least its manslaughter due to neglect. at worst its premeditated murder. *abortion not the baby dying.

Are you free to drink yourself to death?

 

[LouderVol]

Are you free to drink yourself to death?

nope. its against the law to attempt suicide. dumb, but there it is.

 

[rjd970]

Well I didn't think so either, but apparently it is for you. Honestly rjd, you are making this way too difficult. You're interjecting "in the real world" in place of "realistically" (which is what I pointed out previously), and you're also adding assertions that were never part of the hypothetical.



Yes... I gave a hypothetical, just as Trut initially gave a hypothetical. I've accepted it just fine (though you seem to have an issue with it for some reason) and I could not care less as to how it "worked out".

Neither of those hypotheticals (nor Trut's original post about a kid vs cat vs car) referenced the age of the kid or referred to the kid as being property. It is irrelevant to the hypothetical as posted, and personally I don't care if Trut views the kid as property or not. It does not change anything relative to the conversation at hand so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Should I now add that the car is an old rusted bucket that doesn't run and has no value? Again, if you want to argue a point then stick to what was referenced in the hypothetical and stop interjecting things to try and move the goalposts.

As to your final comments, I don't believe I've said anything about Trut being inconsistent. Nor have I accused him of being hypocritical.

The only thing I've said is that I believe Trut is of sound mind, and I don't believe that someone of sound mind would choose to have a kid repeatedly shot (regardless of the kid's age) when there are other options (the cat or the car) and there would be no vengeance (which is what Trut himself stipulated).

Do you disagree??? If not, then you would be declaring that Trut is not of sound mind, which I believe would be worse than saying he is lying to save face.

If you believe he is either lying or not of sound mind, you obviously don't understand what he is saying. He is neither.

The age of the kid and whether they are property has been discussed ad nauseum on by TRUT in this thread and is central to understanding why he answered the way he did.

He is talking about property. THATS IT. Replace the car, kid, and cat with a house, bush, and dog. Before a certain point or age, a kid is no different than property. This has been discussed countless times in this thread.

I don't agree with that view, but I 100% believe he believes it. Within this purview of belief, his answer absolutely logically follows and does not demonstrate lying or being loony. I believe this because I actually understand what he is saying.

 

[rjd970]

If I was going to lie, don't you think I'd say non-repugnant and acceptable things?

The vast majority of people, whether pro- life or pro- choice, find my conclusions repugnant.

Well then, obviously you are not of sound mind.

:crazy:

 

[therealUT]

Well then, obviously you are not of sound mind.

:crazy:

That's true!

 

[Wafflestomper]

she eats cake, she can get fat.
she studies, she can get smart.
she has sex, she can get pregnant.

choices have consequences. sex has some very real, direct, consequences. she is the one who dictated it for herself.

and now her actions going forward impact another person so she is responsible beyond herself.

A few million actual persons die per year from air pollution, and presumably you still drive a car and use electricity.

Your actions impact other people so you're responsible beyond yourself. How many medical bills have you paid for those suffering?

We should pass laws that force those who pollute the air to pay for the long-term medical care of the millions affected! Because!

 

[therealUT]

Since many of us can't see eye to eye on this issue, I propose the following solution.

I'll refrain from touching or asking the government to touch you, your family, and your property.

You'll refrain from touching or asking the government to touch me, my family, and my property.

And, you are welcome to ask your God to send me to hell for my moral failures.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Since many of us can't see eye to eye on this issue, I propose the following solution.

I'll refrain from touching or asking the government to touch you, your family, and your property.

You'll refrain from touching or asking the government to touch me, my family, and my property.

And, you are welcome to ask your God to send me to hell for my moral failures.

I’d prefer to ask my G-d to save you.
There is no eternal torment for the unrighteous........but I digress.

 

[therealUT]

I’d prefer to ask my G-d to save you.
There is no eternal torment for the unrighteous........but I digress.

Thank you, Slice!

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If you believe he is either lying or not of sound mind, you obviously don't understand what he is saying. He is neither.

The age of the kid and whether they are property has been discussed ad nauseum on by TRUT in this thread and is central to understanding why he answered the way he did.

He is talking about property. THATS IT. Replace the car, kid, and cat with a house, bush, and dog. Before a certain point or age, a kid is no different than property. This has been discussed countless times in this thread.

I don't agree with that view, but I 100% believe he believes it. Within this purview of belief, his answer absolutely logically follows and does not demonstrate lying or being loony. I believe this because I actually understand what he is saying.

I fully understand what was said by Trut, and what "has" been said in this thread, and most likely understand it better than you as you appear to be the only one locked in on the PROPERTY point of view relative to the hypotheticals proposed. And if Trut were so inclined, he would post and admit as such.

Trut is well spoken and I believe if he was referring to the kids as property he would have so stated... but he didn't. Rather, he made a lighthearted, repugnant comment in response to Slice's lighthearted comment (as follows), in order to draw a response (which he did from LouderVol).

Now we’re killing cats too?

I would be more pissed off if someone killed my cat than if they killed their kid.

While some will react with indignation to this claim, I suspect that deep down they'd feel the same way with regard to their cat, dog, car, house, etc.

After LouderVol's response he then followed it up with the original hypothetical.

So, you turn on the news tonight and you see a report about children being slaughtered in Syria.

You wake up tomorrow morning to find that your car has been torched.

Which are you more pissed off and upset about?

If you say the children that were slaughtered in Syria, then I'm going to assume you are simply lying to save face.

So in three separate situations Trut has referred to the kid/children, but has not once made reference to them being property. Further, he has not even referred to them as toddlers, or young children, or any other term that would indicate that he was referring to children under the age of 4 (or whatever his cut-off was). That was not a factor of the hypothetical and you are the only one trying to interject it into the discussion.

But I've already said that it doesn't even matter if Trut was referring to them as property or not as it does not change the overall premise of the hypothetical. You can call the kid property if you'd like, but it is a living property the same as the cat. The car, however, is clearly not a living property. Whether Trut is viewing the kid as property or not, he still stated that he would rather his neighbor's kid be shot repeatedly instead of his car... and I highly doubt his neighbors think of their child as nothing more than property. And I really don't believe, in a real situation, that Trut would make that choice... nor would any other person of sound mind. And since there is no way to prove the point either way, it really doesn't matter.

Now as to the larger point of understanding the hypotheticals, they (for the most part) have little to do with the kid, the cat, the car, the dog, or anything else you may want to reference. What is most important in the hypothetical is the connection, which is why Trut referenced children in Syria in his hypothetical versus one's own cat or car.

Most people will have relatively little, if any, connection to children in Syria because they are not exposed to them dying on a regular basis. However, one clearly has a connection to a long time pet, or a favorite car that they drive everyday. Hell... even I would admit that I would be more pissed off about my car given Trut's hypothetical.

That's why I changed it to his neighbor's kid. Whether there is a strong connection or not, at least you would have to see the house where the kid lived everyday, and see his parents mourning and wondering why someone would choose to have their kid killed vs a cat, or (gasp) their car shot. And given that connection, I do not believe Trut would honestly make that choice.

 

[therealUT]

I fully understand what was said by Trut, and what "has" been said in this thread, and most likely understand it better than you as you appear to be the only one locked in on the PROPERTY point of view relative to the hypotheticals proposed. And if Trut were so inclined, he would post and admit as such.

Trut is well spoken and I believe if he was referring to the kids as property he would have so stated... but he didn't. Rather, he made a lighthearted, repugnant comment in response to Slice's lighthearted comment (as follows), in order to draw a response (which he did from LouderVol).





After LouderVol's response he then followed it up with the original hypothetical.



So in three separate situations Trut has referred to the kid/children, but has not once made reference to them being property. Further, he has not even referred to them as toddlers, or young children, or any other term that would indicate that he was referring to children under the age of 4 (or whatever his cut-off was). That was not a factor of the hypothetical and you are the only one trying to interject it into the discussion.

But I've already said that it doesn't even matter if Trut was referring to them as property or not as it does not change the overall premise of the hypothetical. You can call the kid property if you'd like, but it is a living property the same as the cat. The car, however, is clearly not a living property. Whether Trut is viewing the kid as property or not, he still stated that he would rather his neighbor's kid be shot repeatedly instead of his car... and I highly doubt his neighbors think of their child as nothing more than property. And I really don't believe, in a real situation, that Trut would make that choice... nor would any other person of sound mind. And sense there is no way to prove the point either way, it really doesn't matter.

Now as to the larger point of understanding the hypotheticals, they (for the most part) have little to do with the kid, the cat, the car, the dog, or anything else you may want to reference. What is most important in the hypothetical is the connection, which is why Trut referenced children in Syria in his hypothetical versus one's own cat or car.

Most people will have relatively little, if any, connection to children in Syria because they are not exposed to them dying on a regular basis. However, one clearly has a connection to a long time pet, or a favorite car that they drive everyday. Hell... even I would admit that I would be more pissed off about my car given Trut's hypothetical.

That's why I changed it to his neighbor's kid. Whether there is a strong connection or not, at least you would have to see the house where the kid lived everyday, and see his parents mourning and wondering why someone would choose to have their kid killed vs a cat, or (gasp) their car shot. And given that connection, I do not believe Trut would honestly make that choice.

Do I like the kid I'm now connected with?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Do I like the kid I'm now connected with?

Haha... I'm guessing not. He probably leaves his toys in your driveway, has hit your car with an errant baseball throw, and tried to feed your cat to his dog.

 

[therealUT]

Haha... I'm guessing not. He probably leaves his toys in your driveway, has hit your car with an errant baseball throw, and tried to feed your cat to his dog.

That makes the decision easier.

 

[Vol737]

A buddy of mine and myself were talking about what ought to be abortion rights (both legally and morally).

We both agreed that if the man, either before the pregnancy or immediately afterwards, makes it clear that he wants to terminate the pregnancy, then he should be released of both moral and legal duty.

Contract Theory

Contract Theory would be that there is an implied contract between two parties who engage in sexual intercourse. The contract would entail that like the sexual act, both parties are equal. They would both have equal rights to the fetus due to the fetus would be theirs equally (equal genetics), equal consenting in sexual activity, and subject to equal consequences of said actions. Thus, if the fetus could only be terminated if BOTH parties agree. If one party agrees then the fetus must be born but the other would be absolved of their moral and legal responsibilities. The problem here would be if the father wanted to keep the fetus and the mother wanted to terminate. The mother would have to carry the child to term against her will.

Furthermore, many sexual activities happen under the influence of alcohol. Would such a condition negate an implicit contract or would it be viewed as the same as two horny individuals who engage in sexual activity without a care for possible long term consequences? Does it matter if the terms of the contract as stated above includes immediately after knowing about the pregnancy?

Property (Trut)

Under this theory, the fetus would be nothing more than mere property and would be viewed solely as a property dispute. The problems with this theory would include property rights and responsibility.

Property rights. One could look at it one of two ways. First, property rights would be exclusive to the mother. The egg is always with the mother and so is the fetus. The sperm is merely "gifted" the sperm by the father. Under this premise, the mother would retain all property rights (I believe TRUT is here). The second would be equal property rights; equal DNA in the child. The fact that the mother carries would be irrelevant to the issue.

The responsibility factor, as raised by my buddy, would be that sperm would be more closely thought of as a gun than a pen. In the fact that ownership of a gun entails certain responsibilities (both moral and legal) with ownership or gifting. This would be in contrast of no responsibilities associated with ownership or gifting of pen.

Game Theory

I had never really thought about this. My buddy is a big Game Theory guy (I like it, studied it, but not to his extent). The Game Theory can be thought of as a version of Contract Theory but with a way around the girl carrying the fetus to term against her will.

In the game tree/box, the woman would be afforded two options/choices; yes or no. A man would be afforded veto power (no) and complimentary yes (yes if she says "yes"; not yes if she says "no")

Thus,

W: Y M: Y- Both parties have full legal and moral responsibilities.
W: Y M: N- Woman carries to term, has full moral and legal responsibility; man is absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities
W: N M: N- Pregnancy is terminated.

I tried to keep it short.

Thoughts?

Are we assuming both parties (M/W) are capable of rational, critical thought process to exercise one of said theories? I’m not sure LGs neighbors are, so should this decision be made for them? Clearly they did not exercise one of the three theory options.

Florida incest case: Woman gives birth to brother's baby

 

[ClearwaterVol]

good for her. you didn't answer my question.

what does duration have to do with anything? the consequence doesn't have to be a one off thing or short lived. its a life, its not a decision to be made lightly like choosing a diet after too much cake.

You are saying that actions have consequences. My position is that there are responses that can mitigate the damages caused by those actions.

 

[Roustabout]

Sorry for the long post, I want to provide a summary regarding the abortion discussion. Let me save you some time. TLDR. I’ll first state that my position on abortion is one that I feel should be consistent with my faith position. However, I have not made a religious argument and believe that my position on abortion is one that can be held without affirming any belief in God. So, in that regard I feel TRUT has made an unfair accusation. Even if we grant that my position on God is wrong, it has nothing to do with the merit of this argument on abortion. Saying, “your God is an a-hole” isn’t an argument.

It would be impossible not to get into an extended theological discussion if we went down that trail. I believe classical theology encourages us to seek the good on any position, regardless of whether or not it is expressly addressed in scripture. Abortion is not directly addressed in scripture, so I believe the natural law should shape our opinion on the subject. I’ll only briefly touch on his accusation about God as I think it is unfair and prejudicial. I’m actually shocked he would bring this up based on past discussions, and this seems as little more than personal incredulity. As a classical theologian I do not think God is obligated to address individual wrongs as they happen. A discussion of God’s sovereignty and transcendence versus his imminence in His creation, the problem of suffering, and God’s hiddeness would fill pages. Suffice to say, I believe God has sufficient reasons for not preventing sin as it happens in our space and time. How could God intervene to deal the moral failings of man? The only solution would be to prevent us from being responsible moral agents, or to never allow us to come into being at all. Both of those options logically fall apart. We exist. As such, considering our non-existence, or altered existence, is a logical absurdity since we wouldn’t be us at all. Again, that discussion could go on forever, which is why I think he planted that landmine. A clever master of rhetoric always wants to steer the discussion towards what they see as the landmine.

I was accused of not being willing to examine my position. (It should be noted that TRUT also misstated what I had said to get to this point.) That couldn’t be further from the truth. It was my examination of my own position that caused me to abandon one way of thinking on this to embrace a new one. Yes, I am still pro-life, but not for the reasons previously held. I was a personhood advocate and could not maintain that position for several reasons brought up here. In fact, I find much of the arguments for pro-life lacking.
-Rights. I’ve asked several times in this thread for a grounding of human rights and haven’t gotten it. Our human experience makes several things clear to us. One, life is valuable. Does that mean we have rights? Honestly, I don’t know. Not knowing, I am not a proponent of rights in the sense I see it being discussed. From what I’m reading people use the term "rights" as if it is a commodity. If so, then we have to identify a source of those rights.

With regards to life I don’t think this demand exists. Even if you reject an objective source, any rational person would agree that life is a precious commodity and that society ought to serve the function of maintaining an order that cherishes and preserves human life. In fact, I think we can accept this a priori. Human value determines the need for an orderly society, not vice versa. For that reason I’m less interested in rights and more concerned with responsibility. Why we shouldn’t abort the unborn has more to do with our responsibility than it does with the rights of the unborn or the born.

We recognize that relative rights are imbued at a variety of ages. Drinking age, voting age, social security. Although the ages are relative, arbitrary and determined by society, it still speaks to a truth, and the principles that underlie why a society ought to restrict or allow anything. Human value. Even if we could establish a source of rights and pin personhood to an exact moment in human development, I don’t think it changes what I’m arguing. That’s why we shouldn’t confuse rights and value. We’d all agree human development is progressive and that there are certain abilities that ought to be reserved when one passes certain markers on the path of development. For example, I think we’d all support a representative government where people have the right to participate. Still, being 17 doesn’t mean the person has no value, or is less human.

This gets back to personhood. Does personhood imbue rights? If so, based on what? What is the grounding and source of those rights? Sure, certain qualities occur later in human developmental, but does that determine value and whether this being should be withheld protection from continuing on that path of development? And which rights, some or all? And if so, how do we support this?

-Future reality. The reason I changed my position on abortion was directly related to this point. When we look at murder we can see that the future and potential reality of that person is taken. Human experience tells us this over and over. When a young person is killed we lament that there future will not happen. “They had their whole life before them.” In the same way we are less grieved when someone well into their latter years dies, we say, “they lived a FULL life.” This is affirmed in so many areas. When a mother loses her pregnancy, she doesn’t grieve that she lost the fetus, but the future reality that she would experience with her child. The same goes for a loved one who dies (regardless of how). We don’t lose our past experiences. We lose the ongoing connection to that person. TRUT makes a good point with the example of Syrian children, but not what he intended. It is our connection that affects our attachment. Sure, we are attached to our pets, which is why their loss grieves us more than those who we don’t know. Our lack of attachment to Syrian children doesn’t determine their value. I don’t see this detachment supporting his position at all.

No, the future doesn’t yet exist, but that is all we have. The future is not some obscure issue of time, but is literally the very thing that our human experience is directed towards. Every experience is us capturing the next moment. This experience is rooted in the value of life. If we acknowledge the loss of the future reality in a born person, then we must also acknowledge that abortion destroys the future reality of a human. How we live, NOW (our conscious choices), is a direct corollary to how we live later. What we do NOW is always directly connected to how we believe we will be impacted in the future. 401-k? Insurance? Why?

-Consistency. You’ve not seen me attack the consistency of TRUT’s argument. I‘ve even cringed when I’ve read others attempting to. However, consistency doesn’t make an argument valid. If your starting point is wrong then you can be as consistent as you like, but you will end up in the wrong place. A broken compass is a faulty starting point. And, from that point, no matter how consistent you follow the directions, you will be heading in the the wrong direction. You can have the most consistent argument in the world but when someone says they’d save their cat over a child, all the while acknowledging the repugnance of it, they might want to examine their starting point. The simple truth may be that it seems repugnant because it is. Hey, kudos on being able to put all your worldview in syllogistic form, but I don’t think that embodies the human experience, and I think most here see the unappealing sterility of this. It’s not just that it seems creepy, it is. I think someone put too much stock in Ayn Rand novels.

-Society. I would agree that murder does disrupt an orderly society. But, is that what makes murder wrong? That fact that is bad for society doesn’t make it wrong. The consequential affect of revenge in disrupting society is just that, a consequence. It isn’t the basis of why murder is wrong in the first place. Appealing to society is really just begging the question. Why does humanity DESERVE an orderly society? To say murder should be outlawed because it undermines society means nothing unless human life matters. Murder is wrong because human life has value and we (humans) ought to value it and protect it from harm.

If human life has value and we permit abortion then we are undermining that value, which will hurt the fabric of society. Without the human experience there is no society. So, in this regard, I think TRUT has it backwards in which serves the other.

If we say killing a child before it meets the personhood standard is not murder, then we also diminish humanity. Anyone with a brain can see the horror of this is some of TRUT’s statements. Again, it sounds repugnant because it is. We judge a parent good by how it provides and cares for its children. In fact, the family is the basic building block of society. So, this doesn’t demand personhood or rights for the child. It’s irrelevant. A parent who harms their child is undermining the family, which is a pillar of society. So, yes, there are societal implications for allowing abortion. Sure, it isn’t as easy to connect abortion to societal damage as it would be with murder, but I’d say it’s still there. And for those who are uncertain, I’d tell then to accept TRUT’s position on infanticide, because it is the same argument.

-Government involvement. TRUT said that if we want the government involved in this issue then we should want the government involved in all moral issues. This all or nothing claim can only be addressed as a broad brush fallacy, false dichotomy or bald assertion. Just because something regulated by the government has a moral component doesn’t mean the government should regulate all moral actions. And, I don’t think the burden is on me to show otherwise. I think the government should have rules to regulate automobiles. That doesn’t mean I think the government should determine the color of my car or whether it has Sat radio.

Based on this I have no choice (if im consistent) but to view abortion as murder. Due to the egregious nature of this crime, society has justifiable cause to promote a culture that discourages abortion and provides legal protection for the unborn.