Would the Democrats move on abortion?

[PyramidHead]

I would contest this point and say that the 'person' doesn't develop until a considerable time after birth. There is nothing morally problematic, to me anyway, about ending the life of an entity with less interest in its continued existence than a rabbit or a dog. The only way to make it problematic is to insist that there's something morally special about being a member of our species, which I reject. The fact is simply that nobody is harmed by abortion or even early infanticide if anesthesia is used. Actual persons are harmed when a baby is brought to term against the wishes of its mother--not least of all (perhaps most), the person the baby will become.

The issue is the point where the baby can operate independently of the mother's life support system; fetal viability. Based on scientific consensus that is the point where the baby becomes a person with full rights under law.

The line is drawn at fetal viability because it is assumed that if the baby can survive on its own, it should be granted the full protection of the law accorded to any human being. I'm contesting that point on the grounds that viable fetuses still lack most of the features normally associated with moral consideration. The law will probably never arrive at my conclusion due to the stranglehold religious thinking has on our country, but if lawmakers were rational and wanted to prevent the most avoidable harm, abortion would be legal at any point during pregnancy for any reason.

 

[LordKiran]

She didn't respond?

No she didn't respond to the Democrat party position of defending the right of the mother to decide for any reason to have an abortion up to the point of giving birth. She made an emotional appeal by referring to tragic situations that all states already recognize as valid reasons for late term abortion.

I mean if you're going to make exceptions then you can't really argue from a position of the sanctity of life in the first place.

When you establish that the fetus can be aborted for the wellbeing of the mother, then there's a couple of inherent implications made by that position:

1. Not all lives are of equal worth

2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another

3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child


All three of these implications completely undermine the entire concept of the sanctity of life. I mean in what other scenario would it be deemed acceptable for a parent to sacrifice the life of their child for their own well being? In every other case the expectation is for the parent to sacrifice themselves to save their child, yet the reverse is true in regard to unborn children? This means one of two things is true:

That we're all horrible selfish people who condones infanticide

Or nobody ever legitimately regarded unborn children as equal to children who are already born.

 

[credoconsolans]

No she didn't respond to the Democrat party position of defending the right of the mother to decide for any reason to have an abortion up to the point of giving birth. She made an emotional appeal by referring to tragic situations that all states already recognize as valid reasons for late term abortion.

I mean if you're going to make exceptions then you can't really argue from a position of the sanctity of life in the first place.

When you establish that the fetus can be aborted for the wellbeing of the mother, then there's a couple of inherent implications made by that position:

1. Not all lives are of equal worth

2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another

3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child


All three of these implications completely undermine the entire concept of the sanctity of life. I mean in what other scenario would it be deemed acceptable for a parent to sacrifice the life of their child for their own well being? In every other case the expectation is for the parent to sacrifice themselves to save their child, yet the reverse is true in regard to unborn children? This means one of two things is true:

That we're all horrible selfish people who condones infanticide

Or nobody ever legitimately regarded unborn children as equal to children who are already born.

The latter.

That's why divorced parents don't pay child support on a child who isn't born yet. Why a social security number is not given to a 1 month old fetus. Why no anti-choicer can pass the "Building on fire" test without either wanting to change the test or compromising their stance that the unborn are just as valuable as the born ("a building is on fire, one room is full of fertilized eggs in petri dishes, the other full of handicapped people, old people, children and infants in cribs. Firefighters only have time to evacuate one room. Which one do you choose?").

 

[LordKiran]

I mean if you're going to make exceptions then you can't really argue from a position of the sanctity of life in the first place.

When you establish that the fetus can be aborted for the wellbeing of the mother, then there's a couple of inherent implications made by that position:

1. Not all lives are of equal worth

2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another

3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child


All three of these implications completely undermine the entire concept of the sanctity of life. I mean in what other scenario would it be deemed acceptable for a parent to sacrifice the life of their child for their own well being? In every other case the expectation is for the parent to sacrifice themselves to save their child, yet the reverse is true in regard to unborn children? This means one of two things is true:

That we're all horrible selfish people who condones infanticide

Or nobody ever legitimately regarded unborn children as equal to children who are already born.

The latter.

That's why divorced parents don't pay child support on a child who isn't born yet. Why a social security number is not given to a 1 month old fetus. Why no anti-choicer can pass the "Building on fire" test without either wanting to change the test or compromising their stance that the unborn are just as valuable as the born ("a building is on fire, one room is full of fertilized eggs in petri dishes, the other full of handicapped people, old people, children and infants in cribs. Firefighters only have time to evacuate one room. Which one do you choose?").

The problem with the 'building on fire' test is that it's a question with no right answer, so ultimately what does it really accomplish? All it does is reveal personal Prerogative and not whether or not fetuses/fertilized eggs are of equal value to people.

 

[credoconsolans]

The latter.

That's why divorced parents don't pay child support on a child who isn't born yet. Why a social security number is not given to a 1 month old fetus. Why no anti-choicer can pass the "Building on fire" test without either wanting to change the test or compromising their stance that the unborn are just as valuable as the born ("a building is on fire, one room is full of fertilized eggs in petri dishes, the other full of handicapped people, old people, children and infants in cribs. Firefighters only have time to evacuate one room. Which one do you choose?").

The problem with the 'building on fire' test is that it's a question with no right answer, so ultimately what does it really accomplish? All it does is reveal personal Prerogative and not whether or not fetuses/fertilized eggs are of equal value to people.

There is a right answer. And the anti-choicers get stumped. Just like they do when they say 'abortion is murder!' then you ask them how much jail time they want the woman who gets an abortion to serve in prison. They have no answer.

 

[LordKiran]

The problem with the 'building on fire' test is that it's a question with no right answer, so ultimately what does it really accomplish? All it does is reveal personal Prerogative and not whether or not fetuses/fertilized eggs are of equal value to people.

There is a right answer. And the anti-choicers get stumped. Just like they do when they say 'abortion is murder!' then you ask them how much jail time they want the woman who gets an abortion to serve in prison. They have no answer.

Let me clarify. If the premise is that life begins at conception and that all life is precious, then there is no reason to think that one deserves being saved over the other when in your eyes, they're all living beings, people in peril.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let me clarify. If the premise is that life begins at conception and that all life is precious, then there is no reason to think that one deserves being saved over the other when in your eyes, they're all living beings, people in peril.

But that's not what they think.

There are four very conservative people in my office. I asked if they would donate a kidney to save Hillary Clinton. They said no. So not all lives are precious.

i asked if they would support a law that made it legal for the government to take one kidney as necessary to save people. They said no, out of a fear that their kidney might go to some axe murderer, or welfare cheat or drug dealer.

They would not accept a law that would give the state the right to take half a liver, a kidney, bone marrow, against their will. Even if lives are at stake. Even if, like in the case of blood, their body would restore it eventually without any lasting harm to them.

So, I said, you insist on having control of your bodily organs, and a choice in whether or not to donate your bodily organs or bodily functions to another person, EVEN if someone justifies it as 'a life depends on it.' They agreed.

I pointed out that this made them pro-choice.

Wow. There's apparently an ineffable, but undeniable difference between all the organs of the male body, and the womb. They can't quite put their finger on it, but it's there.

 

[LordKiran]

Let me clarify. If the premise is that life begins at conception and that all life is precious, then there is no reason to think that one deserves being saved over the other when in your eyes, they're all living beings, people in peril.

But that's not what they think.

There are four very conservative people in my office. I asked if they would donate a kidney to save Hillary Clinton. They said no. So not all lives are precious.

i asked if they would support a law that made it legal for the government to take one kidney as necessary to save people. They said no, out of a fear that their kidney might go to some axe murderer, or welfare cheat or drug dealer.

They would not accept a law that would give the state the right to take half a liver, a kidney, bone marrow, against their will. Even if lives are at stake. Even if, like in the case of blood, their body would restore it eventually without any lasting harm to them.

So, I said, you insist on having control of your bodily organs, and a choice in whether or not to donate your bodily organs or bodily functions to another person, EVEN if someone justifies it as 'a life depends on it.' They agreed.

I pointed out that this made them pro-choice.

Wow. There's apparently an ineffable, but undeniable difference between all the organs of the male body, and the womb. They can't quite put their finger on it, but it's there.

I know that, but that's not my point, my point is the burning building argument does not adequately expose the dissonance in how they think. You can't corner a pro-lifer with a 'no-right-answer' question because there's nothing to follow to a logical conclusion.

What if they say they'd rather save the fertilized eggs? What's the follow up there? "You're a horrible person?" the obvious response to that is "Yeah well that's just your opinion." And with that the discussion is over with no minds changed. What if they ask a follow up question like "Which room has more people in it?"

 

[credoconsolans]

There is a right answer. And the anti-choicers get stumped. Just like they do when they say 'abortion is murder!' then you ask them how much jail time they want the woman who gets an abortion to serve in prison. They have no answer.

Let me clarify. If the premise is that life begins at conception and that all life is precious, then there is no reason to think that one deserves being saved over the other when in your eyes, they're all living beings, people in peril.

That is the premise. The reality is that most anti-choicers are stumped because they know full well that no one is going to choose a room full of gelid petri dishes to save over a room full of persons. Anyone who did and left granny, a handicapped person and a toddler in their crib to burn to death would be hounded and run out of town on rail. Hence the dissonance they suffer when they realize their claims of a blob of tissue having just as much value as a living person is false.

 

[skepticalbip]

No she didn't respond to the Democrat party position of defending the right of the mother to decide for any reason to have an abortion up to the point of giving birth. She made an emotional appeal by referring to tragic situations that all states already recognize as valid reasons for late term abortion.

I mean if you're going to make exceptions then you can't really argue from a position of the sanctity of life in the first place.

When you establish that the fetus can be aborted for the wellbeing of the mother, then there's a couple of inherent implications made by that position:

1. Not all lives are of equal worth

2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another

3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child


All three of these implications completely undermine the entire concept of the sanctity of life. I mean in what other scenario would it be deemed acceptable for a parent to sacrifice the life of their child for their own well being? In every other case the expectation is for the parent to sacrifice themselves to save their child, yet the reverse is true in regard to unborn children? This means one of two things is true:

That we're all horrible selfish people who condones infanticide

Or nobody ever legitimately regarded unborn children as equal to children who are already born.

First, my concerns over the abortion issue is pretty much non-existent other than trying to understand what is being argued because I know that it is a big concern for many people, mostly the extremists on either end. So my comments are not about personal opinion or bias.

I see the real argument is between the two extremes - those who hold that "life begins at conception" and those who hold that the unborn are only a tissue mass (like a tumor) up to the point that it is born. I think that normal, reasonable people pretty much reject both.

As to your points:
1. Not all lives are of equal worth
2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another
3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child
These are all pretty much reality as judged by the general population. 1. and 2. Congress and the President do not fight in the wars they start - they send "less equal" people to fight them. 3. If the general population didn't believe that adults were worth more than an unborn child then there would be no abortions at all.

You seem to be trying to make it a black and white issue. It isn't there are a hell of a lot of grays.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the argument is mostly unreal. The critics hang their arguments on a situation that almost never exists.

Next to no women have an 'abortion' at 9 months. They are too close to delivery and it is safer for them to go ahead and deliver.

If you're saying that at the point the woman wants the doctor to kill the baby once it's born, then you're dealing with an entirely different matter.

Even women who want their babies, if the baby dies in the womb late in the pregnancy, most doctors recommend them carrying it to term anyway and delivering.

- - - Updated - - -

Granted it is rare (maybe not as rare as you assume though) but are you saying that all states should be required to allow abortions for any reason up until the time of birth? That is what the argument is about.

That is what the activists are demanding. That is what the activists have accomplished in eight states. The Democrat party policy supports these activists.

Only because anything less will be used to ban fetal defect abortions.

 

[LordKiran]

Let me clarify. If the premise is that life begins at conception and that all life is precious, then there is no reason to think that one deserves being saved over the other when in your eyes, they're all living beings, people in peril.

That is the premise. The reality is that most anti-choicers are stumped because they know full well that no one is going to choose a room full of gelid petri dishes to save over a room full of persons. Anyone who did and left granny, a handicapped person and a toddler in their crib to burn to death would be hounded and run out of town on rail. Hence the dissonance they suffer when they realize their claims of a blob of tissue having just as much value as a living person is false.

I'll have to take your word for it then.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean if you're going to make exceptions then you can't really argue from a position of the sanctity of life in the first place.

When you establish that the fetus can be aborted for the wellbeing of the mother, then there's a couple of inherent implications made by that position:

1. Not all lives are of equal worth

2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another

3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child


All three of these implications completely undermine the entire concept of the sanctity of life. I mean in what other scenario would it be deemed acceptable for a parent to sacrifice the life of their child for their own well being? In every other case the expectation is for the parent to sacrifice themselves to save their child, yet the reverse is true in regard to unborn children? This means one of two things is true:

That we're all horrible selfish people who condones infanticide

Or nobody ever legitimately regarded unborn children as equal to children who are already born.

First, my concerns over the abortion issue is pretty much non-existent other than trying to understand what is being argued because I know that it is a big concern for many people, mostly the extremists on either end. So my comments are not about personal opinion or bias.

I see the real argument is between the two extremes - those who hold that "life begins at conception" and those who hold that the unborn are only a tissue mass (like a tumor) up to the point that it is born. I think that normal, reasonable people pretty much reject both.

As to your points:
1. Not all lives are of equal worth
2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another
3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child
These are all pretty much reality as judged by the general population. 1. and 2. Congress and the President do not fight in the wars they start - they send "less equal" people to fight them. 3. If the general population didn't believe that adults were worth more than an unborn child then there would be no abortions at all.

You seem to be trying to make it a black and white issue. It isn't there are a hell of a lot of grays.

Because that's the thing about the opposing view. It's a zero sum game: Life is either sacred or it isn't. Life can't be only 'kinda sacred'. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Juma]

I mean if you're going to make exceptions then you can't really argue from a position of the sanctity of life in the first place.

When you establish that the fetus can be aborted for the wellbeing of the mother, then there's a couple of inherent implications made by that position:

1. Not all lives are of equal worth

2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another

3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child


All three of these implications completely undermine the entire concept of the sanctity of life. I mean in what other scenario would it be deemed acceptable for a parent to sacrifice the life of their child for their own well being? In every other case the expectation is for the parent to sacrifice themselves to save their child, yet the reverse is true in regard to unborn children? This means one of two things is true:

That we're all horrible selfish people who condones infanticide

Or nobody ever legitimately regarded unborn children as equal to children who are already born.

First, my concerns over the abortion issue is pretty much non-existent other than trying to understand what is being argued because I know that it is a big concern for many people, mostly the extremists on either end. So my comments are not about personal opinion or bias.

I see the real argument is between the two extremes - those who hold that "life begins at conception" and those who hold that the unborn are only a tissue mass (like a tumor) up to the point that it is born. I think that normal, reasonable people pretty much reject both.

As to your points:
1. Not all lives are of equal worth
2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another
3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child
These are all pretty much reality as judged by the general population. 1. and 2. Congress and the President do not fight in the wars they start - they send "less equal" people to fight them. 3. If the general population didn't believe that adults were worth more than an unborn child then there would be no abortions at all.

You seem to be trying to make it a black and white issue. It isn't there are a hell of a lot of grays.

I do agree on your general way of thinking here, your kidney-test is superb, but the war/president/soldier/value of life analogy sucks. That is not about that some lifes are more worth than others. Its about that some roles must behave differently. The life of the president is not more worth, it is the continuity of the president that is more worth.

 

[skepticalbip]

Because that's the thing about the opposing view. It's a zero sum game: Life is either sacred or it isn't. Life can't be only 'kinda sacred'. It doesn't work that way.

You still seem to be trying to see the world as black and white. People can consider human life more valuable than a chicken without thinking of it as sacred. It is that big gray area - what is human life more valuable than and what is it less valuable than?

 

[skepticalbip]

First, my concerns over the abortion issue is pretty much non-existent other than trying to understand what is being argued because I know that it is a big concern for many people, mostly the extremists on either end. So my comments are not about personal opinion or bias.

I see the real argument is between the two extremes - those who hold that "life begins at conception" and those who hold that the unborn are only a tissue mass (like a tumor) up to the point that it is born. I think that normal, reasonable people pretty much reject both.

As to your points:
1. Not all lives are of equal worth
2. Human lives can be measured and weighed against one another
3. The life of a grown adult is worth more than the life of an unborn child
These are all pretty much reality as judged by the general population. 1. and 2. Congress and the President do not fight in the wars they start - they send "less equal" people to fight them. 3. If the general population didn't believe that adults were worth more than an unborn child then there would be no abortions at all.

You seem to be trying to make it a black and white issue. It isn't there are a hell of a lot of grays.

I do agree on your general way of thinking here, your kidney-test is superb, but the war/president/soldier/value of life analogy sucks. That is not about that some lifes are more worth than others. Its about that some roles must behave differently. The life of the president is not more worth, it is the continuity of the president that is more worth.

That is a reasonable point. Would you accept that the President's or Congress Critter's son or daughter is not sent into combat because they are "more equal" than the rabble that they send?

 

[LordKiran]

Because that's the thing about the opposing view. It's a zero sum game: Life is either sacred or it isn't. Life can't be only 'kinda sacred'. It doesn't work that way.

You still seem to be trying to see the world as black and white. People can consider human life more valuable than a chicken without thinking of it as sacred. It is that big gray area - what is human life more valuable than and what is it less valuable than?

This is neither here nor there. Obviously the phrase 'sanctity of life' as it is used by the religiously inclined refers to PEOPLE.

So my previous statement stands, Sanctity is an either/or affair, you're life is either sacred or it isn't. There is no room for middle ground in this.

 

[skepticalbip]

You still seem to be trying to see the world as black and white. People can consider human life more valuable than a chicken without thinking of it as sacred. It is that big gray area - what is human life more valuable than and what is it less valuable than?

This is neither here nor there. Obviously the phrase 'sanctity of life' as it is used by the religiously inclined refers to PEOPLE.

So my previous statement stands, Sanctity is an either/or affair, you're life is either sacred or it isn't. There is no room for middle ground in this.

Ah, so you only want to attack one of the absurd ends of the question? Then you are completely missing the argument.

 

[LordKiran]

This is neither here nor there. Obviously the phrase 'sanctity of life' as it is used by the religiously inclined refers to PEOPLE.

So my previous statement stands, Sanctity is an either/or affair, you're life is either sacred or it isn't. There is no room for middle ground in this.

Ah, so you only want to attack one of the absurd ends of the question? Then you are completely missing the argument.

Excuse my ignorance but it has always seemed to me that Sanctity of life and disagreement on religious grounds were the pillars of opposition to abortion as a whole rather than humanist moral/ethical concerns.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ah, so you only want to attack one of the absurd ends of the question? Then you are completely missing the argument.

Excuse my ignorance but it has always seemed to me that Sanctity of life and disagreement on religious grounds were the pillars of opposition to abortion as a whole rather than humanist moral/ethical concerns.

As I said, you apparently have heard (or paid attention to) only one of the absurd extreme ends of the question.

 

[LordKiran]

Excuse my ignorance but it has always seemed to me that Sanctity of life and disagreement on religious grounds were the pillars of opposition to abortion as a whole rather than humanist moral/ethical concerns.

As I said, you apparently have heard (or paid attention to) only one of the absurd extreme ends of the question.

Okay fair enough.