A simple question : for those who want to outlaw abortion

[[censored]]

the other option is of course to just sit on the sidelines and let others make those decisions for you.

[lastchance]

Now, this is why I hate moral issues. There's no way to judge truth, and you have to pick a side here.

What I'm saying in my mind is that a human fetus is worth protecting, but it's worth less than a born human. What if you're in that category? Of course, I can't back this up with any evidence at all, but neither can anyone else.

I think what makes this issue hard is that you have to define what makes a human life worth protecting. I can't do this.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, this is why I hate moral issues. There's no way to judge truth, and you have to pick a side here.

What I'm saying in my mind is that a human fetus is worth protecting, but it's worth less than a born human.



[/ QUOTE ]

You only need to determine why you believe this to be true? what are you basing this on? Are you using an overriding principle that can be applied to other issues? And then finally what are the consequences and extentions of this belief.

I don't have any problem with your belief per se, I am just curious as to how you arrived at it. I would expect that you would be as well.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you propose to enforce such laws?


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Treat it exactly like what it is: the wholesale murder of a human being you don't like.

fim

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, this is why I hate moral issues. There's no way to judge truth, and you have to pick a side here.

What I'm saying in my mind is that a human fetus is worth protecting, but it's worth less than a born human.



[/ QUOTE ]

You only need to determine why you believe this to be true? what are you basing this on? Are you using an overriding principle that can be applied to other issues? And then finally what are the consequences and extentions of this belief.

I don't have any problem with your belief per se, I am just curious as to how you arrived at it. I would expect that you would be as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I am. How did you arrive at your conclusion? I think about brainwave patterns, development, the fact that a fetus is a human life...

I suppose part of the reason we protect beating pregnant woman more is that the fetus is valued. Sometimes it isn't.

I don't know, I'm just rambling. I can't back up my views, but I am saying there is that person who will criminalize abortion but not put it as the going rate for manslaughter/murder.

I guess I think of becoming a human as a slope, and not a series of jumps.

There's the single-celled organism which you can't tell apart from a bacteria. There's an embryo that for all intents and purposes could be a bird embryo except for the DNA inside it. There's the fetus that can begin to feel and touch. And there's the newborn baby, complete with eyes, brain, nose, and a mouth that yells so loudly... Personally, I don't think killing a 2 year old should be a crime. (jopking)

Meh, I don't know. I have a lot of trouble with moral issues.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How are any laws enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

(So, I take it that you reeeeeeally don't want to directly answer my question?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why would abortion be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "crime" in this case is the termination of a pregnancy. For the state to determine whether such a crime is being committed, it must, presumably, begin to monitor women's pregnancies (so that it can determine which ones have been illegally terminated). Do you dispute this?


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an idiot. we prosecute all crimes based on evidence of their commission, not based on monitoring possible victims. we don't have everyone sign in every day to ensure they aren't murdered, yet somehow homicide dets get the job done.

I have never once heard anything intelligible or logical out of you quads. you are the ideal liberal.

fim

[[censored]]

under [censored]-ology you are not required to back up your beliefs nor are they required to be logical. feeling is enough.

since there is no scientific law stating that life must be protected or that all life must be protected equally any decisions will be based soley on beliefs. all beliefs are equal in that they are the creation of man. it matters not how you determined them. so free yourself from that burden.

now how did I reach my position on abortion? I looked at what I value and I looked at what others around me value. I value being reasonable and compassionate.

the issues of abortion (once you accept the scientific fact that life as we define it begins at conception) are A) should life be protected and B) what rights does a woman have over her body. I personally do not value both equally.

so I decided my position should somehow balance those two things in accordance with how I weight each one.

I do not believe there is a difference between a baby 5 minutes after it is born and 5 minutes before it is born. I believe killing either is the same act of murder and I would like to see it treated this way under the law.

once I came to this conclusion it was simply matter of deciding at what point in the pregnancy to draw the line up to conception.

Based on my own internal judgement of valuing A & B from above I feel most comfortable with having abortion be illegal somewhere around the first trimestor. thus a woman still has time to make a decision concerning her body but also protecting life at somepoint takes precedence.

as for how the laws on abortion are determined [censored]-ology requires that all laws represent the values of the majority of the people. if the people decide abortion in all forms to be legal, the ultimate crime would be to impose my defeated beliefs on the people through tatics like clinic-bombing or whatever. the most important thing is that the people decide how they are governed and that they support the laws.

[lastchance]

Meh, I don't know. I believe in arguments, in certain arguments winning based upon principles both parties agree with.

If there was an argument either for or against abortion that led to a conclusion based on postulates both sides accepted as true, then that would be what I would vote for. There are obvious cases when a majority feels something, and they are going to be completely wrong. Just because people say the earth is flat doesn't mean it's not flat. Just because a majority of people believe in slavery doesn't mean it's right. And there's no way murder shouldn't be outlawed.

Personally, my beliefs on how a government tend to be altruistic, and outlawing practices that hurt the group as a whole (overuse of resources, bootlegging, stealing, etc.) and encouraging practices that help the group as a whole (charity, taxation, investment, etc.).

Note: This isn't going to be tyranny of the majority, as the number of people isn't all that's being considered. What I'm talking about is population size * what people get out of it (as defined numerically).

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

If there was an argument either for or against abortion that led to a conclusion based on postulates both sides accepted as true, then that would be what I would vote for. There are obvious cases when a majority feels something, and they are going to be completely wrong. Just because people say the earth is flat doesn't mean it's not flat. Just because a majority of people believe in slavery doesn't mean it's right. And there's no way murder shouldn't be outlawed.



[/ QUOTE ]

the earth not being flat is scientific fact and not belief. man through law cannot change scientific fact, ie we cannot make a law which causes the earth to be flat. thus facts come before beliefs.

It is not enough to say the majority will be wrong as viewed in hindsight because clearly all forms of government will make these mistakes. If man cannot be perfect than how could he in whatever form govern prefectly. It is illogical to then hold any form of goverment to the standard of perfection.

there are no wrong and right. there is no scientific fact not allowing slavery so then clearly opposition to slaverly is nothing more then a belief. it has no more inherent strength or justness than say any other belief, including one supporting slavery.

You either hold the belief that it is just for people to govern themselves or you don't. However if you don't, if you believe that your judgement should replace that of the people's you should be prepared to accept the consequences. namely believing just as strongly that they can impose their will on you. since either way beliefs are going to be imposed doesn't it stand to reason that the beliefs being imposed reflect the values of the largest amount of people? even if mistakes are going to be made.

[oreogod]

Im a fan of pro choice. Granted I dont know anyone that had an abortion or anything like that, but I believe in the womans right to choose.

Of course, if she's using it as a form of BC (meaning she has gotten more than a few abortions) -- that Im not cool with. Maybe they should hand out punch cards, after the 2nd or 3rd one in, you're done.

If such a law gets passed, welcome to the new abortion clinics (or of the past):