steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?
Yes. He can't force her to carry it. I have no problem with him offering her basically a surrogacy contract to carry it, but he can't require it.Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
Until such time as the sperm donor can transpant the fetus into his own body, and give birth , then yes.Does anyone think the woman has the right to abort even if the father wnts to raise the baby without the woman?
Why can that be stated with clarity?There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
To me there is an ugliness to that.A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
A fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
You say that as if there is not “an ugliness” to the idea that women have less right to their own bodies than a corpse. As if there’s not “an ugliness” to a bunch of men declaring her a vessel without rights on their whim.To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
Biology is icky and gross. I am amazed that it’s taken you so long to notice.To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.Why can that be stated with clarity?There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Do you declare something true because you say it is?Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.Why can that be stated with clarity?There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Your argument has instilled no sense of value for the woman. You Loving v Virginia it by saying you think the guy should be responsible too, but ultimately, you feel the woman has no rights to her self-autonomy after she has sex... of which then said autonomy becomes yours (or the state's).no, it is:you have this belief that you use to verbally crucify anyone you disagree with,
It is:
"I value human individuals."
Humans have never been very good at that. We've gotten a little better over the last few centuries. But we're still not great at it.
Tom
"i claim to value human individuals. i can't or won't explain what 'value' means, nor how it applies to the real world. however, the fact that i have this random and ill-defined zeal means you must instantly capitulate to whatever judgment i have about a given situation or else i'll just resort to throwing out childish insults"
pretty big difference there.
Got it.
You don't value humans. You don't even know what value means.
The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.Do you declare something true because you say it is?Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.Why can that be stated with clarity?There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.
Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
So, when is it okay to kill someone?
And, what do you mean by 'a life'. Give a better definition. A fetus is alive, but it is not 'a life'. yet. The earliest that happens is viability, about 24 weeks.The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.Do you declare something true because you say it is?Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.Why can that be stated with clarity?There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.
Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
Your statement equivocates "life" and "a life". This discussion is about human life, so we can disregard asexual reproduction.
We were all once zygotes and before that, we did not exist. As for the zygotes who did not manage to grab hold, they died very young. The question for discussion is, "When is it okay to kill someone?" Since we can't kill a person who does not exist, we need a starting time. Conception is a defined point in a person's life, so it's as good as to start the clock.
I've met people who claim a clump of cells is not a life and use this to justify destroying them. When pressed, none of them had a clear demarcation between lifeless clump and living thing, so I choose conception, just for the clarity of it.
So, when is it okay to kill someone?
Viability, and viability unfortunately isn't a very dichotomous term. I really don't care what people believe, as long as the woman gets to make her choice.The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.Do you declare something true because you say it is?Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.Why can that be stated with clarity?There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.
As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.
The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.
That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.
Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.
Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.
Your statement equivocates "life" and "a life". This discussion is about human life, so we can disregard asexual reproduction.
We were all once zygotes and before that, we did not exist. As for the zygotes who did not manage to grab hold, they died very young. The question for discussion is, "When is it okay to kill someone?" Since we can't kill a person who does not exist, we need a starting time. Conception is a defined point in a person's life, so it's as good as to start the clock.
I've met people who claim a clump of cells is not a life and use this to justify destroying them. When pressed, none of them had a clear demarcation between lifeless clump and living thing, so I choose conception, just for the clarity of it.
Really? I'm going to get everything back after delivery?s/donate/loan/Every woman who is forced to give birth agains her will is being forced to donate her uterus, her blood, her immune system and more to the fetus.I have not heard of forced organ donation.
You have never heard of a woman being denied an abortion against her will?
It did, it has. Roe v Wade decided she should not be forced to donate her organs against her will to a fetus.That would certainly go to the Supreme Court.