Abortion Rights

[ClearwaterVol]

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.

But you are protecting the unborn at the expense of the living. Carrying a child to term entails risks to the person doing so. I cannot place a greater value on the unborn than I do the living. Forcing a human to accept a risk when she does not wish to accept that risk is a concept with which I do not agree.

I appreciate reality argument that anytime anyone is murdered there is a loss of potential, but it is a different loss of potential when said being has no reality whatsoever and in the absence of an abortion still may not ever be born alive. The loss of the potential in this case is the potential to be which you give greater protections to than someone that already is.

 

[therealUT]

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.

That you "feel" that I have made an unfair accusation means nothing. I asked you a question. You answered the question. And, I then told you that, according to your own standards, you must believe that your God is morally wrong. I said this expecting the response that God allows this because free will and liberty are so valuable. I then made the claim that, if that is the case, then the government ought to allow things that are egregiously immoral (as God does) because free will and liberty are simply more valuable (as God himself must even accept these evaluations).

The rest of what you said is dribble. You assert that you don't believe in rights, as they have no grounding, and then you assert that human life is so valuable that everyone is obligated to respect it, and that is value is basic and without grounding. That is, you provide a rights case, yourself, that is grounded in nothing more than how you value human life.

I argued that persons are valuable in this way. As such, persons have rights. Further, I could give a reason as to why personhood can be seen as so valuable (it is quite literally the capacity to break beyond the natural constraints that bind every other living thing). Without personhood, your human life can only be seen as valuable because humans are in some sense relevantly like you. But, this move doesn't give any reason to prefer humanity, as a whole, to white people. I find that problematic. You draw an arbitrary line to avoid this problem. I don't.

With regard to repugnance and consistency, I've admitted to following:

1. My position is repugnant.

2. My conclusions are consistent.

3. Consistency does not guarantee truth.

4. Inconsistency guarantees falsehood.

5. I'm not attempting to convince anyone to accept my position.

6. I'm demonstrating that my position is consistent.

7. I'm demonstrating that your position is inconsistent.

Now, it seems that the only thing, then, left to discuss is whether or not your position is inconsistent:

Is there a non-moral reason to legally prohibit murder?

If so, what is that reason?

Does that reason apply to abortion?

If so, why?

Feel free to respond directly to these four simple questions. If you can't, then you can place as many words on the screen as you like. It simply does not matter.

NB. Regarding me having the relationship of society backwards.

You seem to be under the impression that the reason I think that society ought to prevent murder is because if it permitted murder, then it could be the case that eventually everyone in society is murdered and, then, there is no society.

Let me disabuse you of this illusion. That's not why I think society needs to prevent murder. The overwhelming psychological tendency among persons is to flee from killing other persons. We do not need a law to simply keep everyone in society from killing everyone in society, in the sense that we could reasonably believe that without such laws this would occur. That is, the barrier against killing your fellow man is, at a deep psychological level, incredibly high.

However, there are some circumstances in which that barrier is significantly lowered or that we are fueled in such a way as to overcome that barrier. The largest circumstance comes in the form of vengeance. That is, if you kill my wife, and there is no legal opportunity for redress, rectification, and retribution against you, I will overcome any obstacles placed in my path to kill you, your wife, and your children (saving you for last, so that you are tormented by seeing them suffer). And, I will sacrifice my life in this pursuit. In this way, I am not special. Most humans are hard-wired in this way: we are at a very deep level vengeful.

However, these hard-wiring and this vengeance will quickly spur a cycle of vengeance, that is, an environment of constant vendettas. This is the state of war in the state of nature, and through it, we will all be rendered to the level of living of that of beasts and brutes. There will be no liberty and no free will, in any sense in which these things could be valuable.

That is, the reason we legally prohibit murder is not the fear of some annihilation or extinction of the species, whether locally or globally; the reason is that when we are the ones who have yet to be murdered, in this vendetta game, life will be all the torments of the most unimaginable hell.

Someone killing their own fetus, even if that fetus has personhood, does not inspire any such vengeance in any one. Two parents killing their own infant, even if that infant has personhood, does not inspire any such vengeance in any one. However, as I alluded to earlier, if I even allow someone else to kill my neighbor's kid, when I was given the choice of his kid or my cat, my neighbor will desire vengeance against me.

 

[LouderVol]

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!

uh, might make sense if there was a direct hose from my car to their face. I only blame the woman if she directly leads to the childs death. she falls down some stairs and isn't harmed herself but the child dies, I see no fault with her. she eats something she doesn't know she shouldn't and it kills the baby, I don't fault her or see any moral wrong.

and to your example I already do. taxes, and ACA. I also live in a country that is actively improving itself and work in an industry that makes things greener.

 

[LouderVol]

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

mitigate "make less severe", and there are things that can make bearing a child less severe, I hear husbands/SOs are a good option. so is being healthy, having decent money, so on and so forth.

 

[Roustabout]

That you "feel" that I have made an unfair accusation means nothing. I asked you a question. You answered the question. And, I then told you that, according to your own standards, you must believe that your God is morally wrong. I said this expecting the response that God allows this because free will and liberty are so valuable. I then made the claim that, if that is the case, then the government ought to allow things that are egregiously immoral (as God does) because free will and liberty are simply more valuable (as God himself must even accept these evaluations).

The rest of what you said is dribble. You assert that you don't believe in rights, as they have no grounding, and then you assert that human life is so valuable that everyone is obligated to respect it, and that is value is basic and without grounding. That is, you provide a rights case, yourself, that is grounded in nothing more than how you value human life.

I argued that persons are valuable in this way. As such, persons have rights. Further, I could give a reason as to why personhood can be seen as so valuable (it is quite literally the capacity to break beyond the natural constraints that bind every other living thing). Without personhood, your human life can only be seen as valuable because humans are in some sense relevantly like you. But, this move doesn't give any reason to prefer humanity, as a whole, to white people. I find that problematic. You draw an arbitrary line to avoid this problem. I don't.

With regard to repugnance and consistency, I've admitted to following:

1. My position is repugnant.

2. My conclusions are consistent.

3. Consistency does not guarantee truth.

4. Inconsistency guarantees falsehood.

5. I'm not attempting to convince anyone to accept my position.

6. I'm demonstrating that my position is consistent.

7. I'm demonstrating that your position is inconsistent.

Now, it seems that the only thing, then, left to discuss is whether or not your position is inconsistent:

Is there a non-moral reason to legally prohibit murder?

If so, what is that reason?

Does that reason apply to abortion?

If so, why?

Feel free to respond directly to these four simple questions. If you can't, then you can place as many words on the screen as you like. It simply does not matter.

NB. Regarding me having the relationship of society backwards.

You seem to be under the impression that the reason I think that society ought to prevent murder is because if it permitted murder, then it could be the case that eventually everyone in society is murdered and, then, there is no society.

Let me disabuse you of this illusion. That's not why I think society needs to prevent murder. The overwhelming psychological tendency among persons is to flee from killing other persons. We do not need a law to simply keep everyone in society from killing everyone in society, in the sense that we could reasonably believe that without such laws this would occur. That is, the barrier against killing your fellow man is, at a deep psychological level, incredibly high.

However, there are some circumstances in which that barrier is significantly lowered or that we are fueled in such a way as to overcome that barrier. The largest circumstance comes in the form of vengeance. That is, if you kill my wife, and there is no legal opportunity for redress, rectification, and retribution against you, I will overcome any obstacles placed in my path to kill you, your wife, and your children (saving you for last, so that you are tormented by seeing them suffer). And, I will sacrifice my life in this pursuit. In this way, I am not special. Most humans are hard-wired in this way: we are at a very deep level vengeful.

However, these hard-wiring and this vengeance will quickly spur a cycle of vengeance, that is, an environment of constant vendettas. This is the state of war in the state of nature, and through it, we will all be rendered to the level of living of that of beasts and brutes. There will be no liberty and no free will, in any sense in which these things could be valuable.

That is, the reason we legally prohibit murder is not the fear of some annihilation or extinction of the species, whether locally or globally; the reason is that when we are the ones who have yet to be murdered, in this vendetta game, life will be all the torments of the most unimaginable hell.

Someone killing their own fetus, even if that fetus has personhood, does not inspire any such vengeance in any one. Two parents killing their own infant, even if that infant has personhood, does not inspire any such vengeance in any one. However, as I alluded to earlier, if I even allow someone else to kill my neighbor's kid, when I was given the choice of his kid or my cat, my neighbor will desire vengeance against me.

You've stated your position. I've stated mine. I see no benefit in engaging any further with you any further, or answering your questions. I'll let you take the pleasure in being able to make some other allegation that I'm unwilling to....... blah, blah, blah.

 

[LouderVol]

But you are protecting the unborn at the expense of the living. Carrying a child to term entails risks to the person doing so. I cannot place a greater value on the unborn than I do the living. Forcing a human to accept a risk when she does not wish to accept that risk is a concept with which I do not agree.

I appreciate reality argument that anytime anyone is murdered there is a loss of potential, but it is a different loss of potential when said being has no reality whatsoever and in the absence of an abortion still may not ever be born alive. The loss of the potential in this case is the potential to be which you give greater protections to than someone that already is.

this is like arguing that the murdered individual was going to die the next day. they had no potential either, so the murder is not morally wrong.

the point is we can't know what the potential might be, you have to give us all a chance.

the baby exists, otherwise you couldn't abort it. still you detract from what is being discussed, refusing to admit what it is you are doing. you are killing a baby. stop hiding behind words.

 

[Roustabout]

But you are protecting the unborn at the expense of the living. Carrying a child to term entails risks to the person doing so.

My snarky response is, so what? That isn't an argument.

I cannot place a greater value on the unborn than I do the living. Forcing a human to accept a risk when she does not wish to accept that risk is a concept with which I do not agree.

Forcing? There is no force. A conceived child is not a disease. It is the natural result of consummation. And you act as if an abortion has no risk. One, it is 100% terminal to the unborn child and still poses risk to the mother.

I appreciate reality argument that anytime anyone is murdered there is a loss of potential, but it is a different loss of potential when said being has no reality whatsoever and in the absence of an abortion still may not ever be born alive. The loss of the potential in this case is the potential to be which you give greater protections to than someone that already is.

It's only different in your connection to the unborn. That means you are saying YOUR relation to a being is what determines its value. There aren't greater protections and childbearing is not a disease. You are treating it as such, and so you have a burden to support that case. Either human life has value or it doesn't. All, you are saying is some life has value and you are the arbiter of who gets it and when.

 

[LouderVol]

You've stated your position. I've stated mine. I see know benefit in engaging any further with you any further, or answering your questions. I'll let you take the pleasure in being able to make some other allegation that I'm unwilling to....... blah, blah, blah.

I did the same after he stated he valued an animal's life more than a humans.

 

[therealUT]

You've stated your position. I've stated mine. I see know benefit in engaging any further with you any further, or answering your questions. I'll let you take the pleasure in being able to make some other allegation that I'm unwilling to....... blah, blah, blah.

I care little about whether or not you choose to engage, as I have made it clear that I don't discuss things with my interlocutors for the purpose of persuading them to accept my position. That's a fool's errand.

However, I have demonstrated to anyone reading, that your view is inconsistent. As such, at least one of the claims you are making must be false.

It is possible that my view is consistent and completely false. I'm fine with that possibility, as I am not relying on any falsehoods to coerce the behavior of my fellow members of society. You, on the other hand, are using and attempting to use the arsenal of the state in order to threaten your fellow members of society to behave in a certain way. Since, clearly, one of the things you use to support this position must be false, this strikes me as incredibly immoral.

Don't worry, I'll pray to your God and ask that He bestow mercy on you (for both wanting to play God, as moral judge, and for doing so according to reasoning that must include at least one false premise).

Ooops, was that unfair of me, to bring up your God?

 

[Roustabout]

I did the same after he stated he valued an animal's life more than a humans.

I don't have a problem with part of his statement. It's where he goes with it from there. We do have personal value in things we are attached to, such as pets. So that the death of a pet will cause us more grief than Syrian children dying. But again, this doesn't prove anything. It just speaks to human sociology. In fact, I'd say we are wired to detach as a way of protecting ourselves emotionally. We would live in constant depression and anxiety otherwise.

 

[therealUT]

I did the same after he stated he valued an animal's life more than a humans.

And, yet, you haven't run out and liquidated your assets so that you can provide the means to get children out of Syria and save them from being slaughtered.

But, right, keep telling yourself that you place all of this value on human life and not on your own property and convenience.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Forcing? There is no force. A conceived child is not a disease. It is the natural result of consummation. And you act as if an abortion has no risk. One, it is 100% terminal to the unborn child and still poses risk to the mother.

It is not much different to some people. Their body suffers from an abnormal (at least to them) condition and they want to rid themselves of that condition. They are willing to accept the risks of an abortion and not that of carrying the fetus to term. You want to force them to accept risk which they clearly do not want to accept.

I would support inducing labor. That way there is no destruction of any form of human life. Either it survives or dies, but your are not valuing the life of one over another.

It seems a little bit like form over substance but...

 

[ClearwaterVol]

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

Actually that isn't accurate. Suicide is not illegal. To assist someone in committing suicide is often illegal and euthanasia is illegal, but putting a gun in your mouth and shooting oneself is not illegal.

However, the context of which I speak really isn't suicide as we think of typically. I am free to drink as much as I want. I am armed with the knowledge that it could kill me. Since we are permitted to do so, would you bar a pregnant woman from drinking? Smoking?

In short, how much are you planning on infringing upon her liberties to protect that of the unborn.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

mitigate "make less severe", and there are things that can make bearing a child less severe, I hear husbands/SOs are a good option. so is being healthy, having decent money, so on and so forth.

Are you attempting argue that not being pregnant is not less severe than being pregnant for one that does not wish to be pregnant.

 

[Quaint88]

Sorry for the long post...

We exist. As such, considering our non-existence, or altered existence, is a logical absurdity since we wouldn’t be us at all.
...

I've seen this argument a few times and haven't seen anyone take issue with it yet, so I most likely just don't understand it. It seems you're assuming one must be able to consider one's non-existence or altered existence from the non-existent or altered-existence state one is considering, rather than just one's current state, in order for any conclusions about said state to be valid. If so, why? If I've misrepresented what you said, please correct me.

 

[Roustabout]

It is not much different to some people. Their body suffers from an abnormal (at least to them) condition and they want to rid themselves of that condition. They are willing to accept the risks of an abortion and not that of carrying the fetus to term. You want to force them to accept risk which they clearly do not want to accept.

I would support inducing labor. That way there is no destruction of any form of human life. Either it survives or dies, but your are not valuing the life of one over another.

It seems a little bit like form over substance but...

What they want to rid themselves of the the human life that is developing within them. At that point, they have a responsibility, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Again, if you think human life has value then your position doesn't follow. I value both lives, and you haven't shown i value one over another. I value human life, period. Pregnancy is NOT a disease and the fetus is a developing human life. Those are facts. The burden of proof is on you to show that murdering a developing human is less significant than the consequences of birth.

Simple question. If a mother withholds food and care for her child, should she be legally charged?

 

[Sin City Vol]

Heh... LG voted for Hillary. He can't argue against mass murder to cover your decades of corruption.

NO proof...move on

 

[Roustabout]

Let's look at how stupid the vengeance argument is. it hasn't been mentioned that some extremist have blown up abortion clinics and killed those performing abortions.
This, of course rare, due to the fact that pro-life advocates do not view violence as an alternative, despite how heinous they view the act of abortion.

Following this thinking the correct thing for pro-lifers to do is to commit attacks on abortion clinics so that the government has a reason to outlaw abortion and prevent the vengeance. Geez.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Let's look at how stupid the vengeance argument is. it hasn't been mentioned that some extremist have blown up abortion clinics and killed those performing abortions.
This, of course rare, due to the fact that pro-life advocates do not view violence as an alternative, despite how heinous they view the act of abortion.

Following this thinking the correct thing for pro-lifers to do is to commit attacks on abortion clinics so that the government has a reason to outlaw abortion and prevent the vengeance. Geez.

I'm thinking about seeking vengeance for that poor strawman you just murdered.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm thinking about seeking vengeance for that poor strawman you just murdered.

Make a case f*** head

 

[therealUT]

Let's look at how stupid the vengeance argument is. it hasn't been mentioned that some extremist have blown up abortion clinics and killed those performing abortions.
This, of course rare, due to the fact that pro-life advocates do not view violence as an alternative, despite how heinous they view the act of abortion.

Following this thinking the correct thing for pro-lifers to do is to commit attacks on abortion clinics so that the government has a reason to outlaw abortion and prevent the vengeance. Geez.

They don't have the psychological impetus for vengeance over the aborting of a fetus.

 

[therealUT]

Let's look at how stupid the vengeance argument is.

Have you ever reflected on why the scripture passage about an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, was necessary and revolutionary? It is a passage about restraint in the aftermath of injury. It is there because, pre-legal tribes often went to war with other tribes on account that a member of their tribe had been injured by the other tribe. And, in seeking redress and retribution for the "loss of one eye", they often went above and beyond.

As such, the other tribe would then, once they regained the strength, return to seek redress and retribution for the injury they sustained that was above "the loss of one eye". That is, they would seek redress and retribution for "the loss of two eyes", again, metaphorically speaking. Yet, they would go above and beyond "two eyes".

The original tribe, then, once it regained strength, would...

You see how this cycle of vengeance goes? It is this cycle of vengeance that is implied by all of the earliest commandments throughout various early civilizations spanning the geography of the earth. That is, one of the earliest commandments, across multiple civilizations, that we can find record of is a commandment pleading for restraint and urging against vengeance.

In other words, that was the most pressing problem. And, once that problem begins to be resolved, societies begin to develop, civilization comes onto the scene, building and agriculture begin, alcohol is developed, art starts to appear, poetry and literature take form. And, all of this is occurring while infanticide is widespread, while murder rates are astronomically higher than they are now. Society comes on the scene and advances because individuals are no longer consumed in vendettas.

It's the solving of the vendetta problem that turns pre-legal humanity into legal humanity, and it is that change that provides us with the possibility of flourishing.

And, here you are saying the vengeance argument is stupid. Congrats.

 

[Roustabout]

Have you ever reflected on why the scripture passage about an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, was necessary and revolutionary? It is a passage about restraint in the aftermath of injury. It is there because, pre-legal tribes often went to war with other tribes on account that a member of their tribe had been injured by the other tribe. And, in seeking redress and retribution for the "loss of one eye", they often went above and beyond.

As such, the other tribe would then, once they regained the strength, return to seek redress and retribution for the injury they sustained that was above "the loss of one eye". That is, they would seek redress and retribution for "the loss of two eyes", again, metaphorically speaking. Yet, they would go above and beyond "two eyes".

The original tribe, then, once it regained strength, would...

You see how this cycle of vengeance goes? It is this cycle of vengeance that is implied by all of the earliest commandments throughout various early civilizations spanning the geography of the earth. That is, one of the earliest commandments, across multiple civilizations, that we can find record of is a commandment pleading for restraint and urging against vengeance.

In other words, that was the most pressing problem. And, once that problem begins to be resolved, societies begin to develop, civilization comes onto the scene, building and agriculture begin, alcohol is developed, art starts to appear, poetry and literature take form. And, all of this is occurring while infanticide is widespread, while murder rates are astronomically higher than they are now. Society comes on the scene and advances because individuals are no longer consumed in vendettas.

It's the solving of the vendetta problem that turns pre-legal humanity into legal humanity, and it is that change that provides us with the possibility of flourishing.

And, here you are saying the vengeance argument is stupid. Congrats.

Nope. I offered an example. I'm not disputing any of that. Goal posts realigned.

 

[therealUT]

Nope. I offered an example. I'm not disputing any of that. Goal posts realigned.

Correct, you offered a very weak example about the relatively tiny amount of individuals that are so upset that they blow up abortion clinics or shoot abortion providers and then, either die in the act, or are quickly apprehended by the authorities where a dispassionate redress, rectification, and retribution occurs, because it is carried out by the third-party state and not the individuals whose loved ones were killed by the bomber or shooter, and, thus, no cycle of vengeance gets off the ground.

Now, maybe you are using this weak example to shout, "See, here! Here is someone who is so upset about the killing of fetus's that they have taken vengeance!"

Sure, but it's an oddity. Like, less than one person does this for one million fetuses killed. Now, were there to be no legal redress if wives were killed by others, would you say the ratio of vengeance seekers to wives killed would be higher or lower than this?

Like, you know, for every one million wives murdered, I could see one husband seeking vengeance, but, not too many more than that...

Or, does that sound absolutely absurd to you?

I'd peg the number at around 8 or 9 husbands seeking vengeance, taking more than just the "one eye" from the murderer, and risking everything they have, including their own lives, to ensure that the person who murdered their wife will suffer unimaginable torment. And, the other 1 or 2 husbands, you ask? They are pansies and the scum of the earth.

You see the difference, right? You can at least grant that there is less of a risk of a cycle of vendetta occurring because abortions are legally allowed than the murder of someone else's wife, right?

I mean, WE ALL SEE THIS, right?!?!?!?

So, yeah, "stupid vengeance argument"...

 

[ClearwaterVol]

What they want to rid themselves of the the human life that is developing within them. At that point, they have a responsibility, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Again, if you think human life has value then your position doesn't follow. I value both lives, and you haven't shown i value one over another. I value human life, period. Pregnancy is NOT a disease and the fetus is a developing human life. Those are facts. The burden of proof is on you to show that murdering a developing human is less significant than the consequences of birth.

Simple question. If a mother withholds food and care for her child, should she be legally charged?

Yes, because that life is independent of hers. Your other query is posed in a form I disagree with. However, you are valuing one life over another by forcing a woman to carry to term against her wishes.