Law John Roberts joins liberal justices as Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law...

[Thurisaz]

Greek statue avatar profiles are usually like that

If I ever feel the need for your approval, I'll be sure to change my avatar to menstruation art or something else more up your alley.

Well, at least you're not calling Heracles a philosopher anymore.

 

[chs140]

This has also been a huge influence for me. I am for allowing abortion in cases of rape* and danger for the mother's life. In all other cases, the only reason why I am against an abortion ban is that I believe the effects of such a move (women travelling abroad, back alley abortions, increased number of unwanted kids from low-IQ parents) would not be desirable for society.

But yeah. My wife is pregnant again, and seeing the little guy suck his thumb at 15 weeks was quite impressive. Germany does not allow abortions after the first trimester, after that, things must be very restrictive IMO. It is a muddy and dark topic anyway, but even going near viability is a big no-no imo.

Rape is like ten out of 600 thousand cases. It's a bullshit out card libs throw around so they dont have to live up to the consequences of their actions. As always.

 

[Thurisaz]

Where do you draw the line at where life starts?

The starting moment, of course. At conception.

Your reasoning seems incredibly arbitrary.

It's not: at that very moment a new human life has began.

Given advances in genetics, human beings can be grown from skin cells.

Irrelevant. They are not conceived at all.

Simply calling a fetus, which is the size of a fig at 11 weeks a baby does not make it so.

Of course not. Just as calling an 11 year old an adult doesn't make him one. So what? They're no less human because they're younger.

Calling it murder does not make it so, because a fetus is not a sentient human being, no matter the potential in utero.

Sentience isn't what makes a human being.

Your last sentence is cheap and lazy.

That's a nice projection.

 

[Thurisaz]

How can a fetus lacking a brain be a human being capable of being murdered?

By being a living member of the genus homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Darkballs]

The words you're looking for are consistent and logical. The question is not about suffering. It is about whether it is anyone's right to kill a human being that has not merited death by any fault of his.

I get your argument. That it needs to be consistent with your arbitrary dismissal of any difference between a barely gestating cluster of cells and that of a walking talking kid in middle-school. Further, it has to be logical, within that framework.

But it's the framework that's retarded. People are beating you over the head with what is a clear distinction, while you pretend you don't see it (ex: they belong to the same species). The difference between an actual child and something barely in utero carries both an obvious legal difference recognized by every western system of law; and a clear ethical difference recognized by everyone with a brain.

 

[Thurisaz]

I get your argument.

If you did, I'd imagine you addressing it instead of obfuscating the issue with red herrings.

That it needs to be consistent with your arbitrary dismissal of any difference between a barely gestating cluster of cells and that of a walking talking kid in middle-school.

Seeing as they're both living human beings I have difficulty getting stuck in irrelevancies, such as their age. If you kill someone's child before it is born or three years after birth, in both cases they're a child short of what they would be without the murder. Whether you change the age of the victim doesn't matter.

People are beating you over the head with what is a clear distinction, while you pretend you don't see it (ex: they belong to the same species).

The distinction people are making is entirely spurious. It has nothing to do with whether proactive killing of people is wrong. That is the whole issue. Either it is wrong in all cases, which would be logically consistent, or not in some cases, as my opponents irrationally state.

The difference between an actual child and something barely in utero carries both an obvious legal difference recognized by every western system of law; and a clear ethical difference recognized by everyone with a brain.

The difference is legal and emotional, not logical nor rational.

 

[tonni]

If I ever feel the need for your approval, I'll be sure to change my avatar to menstruation art or something else more up your alley.

Well, at least you're not calling Heracles a philosopher anymore.

I never did. I think I meant the other guy. Anyway you people are unbearable.

 

[Thurisaz]

I never did. I think I meant the other guy.

You used plural.

 

[Darkballs]

This is your entire argument:

Seeing as they're both living human beings I have difficulty getting stuck in irrelevancies, such as their age.

It has nothing to do with whether proactive killing of people is wrong.

You keep making these two assumptions without giving any explanation as to why, and ignoring the obvious glaring distinctions between the two, no matter how often and directly they are pointed out to you. Like I'm about to here, for the last time:

An 11-week old zygote is not a "living human being" in the same sense as and 11-year old girl is. The differences are uncountable, but some of the obvious being: 1) One has a goddamn brain and is aware of it's own existence; 2) one has a spinal cord and nerve endings and is capable of feeling pain.

Declaring the two "people" so that you can then declare them dead by means of murder, does not just make it so. If you are not going to address the distinctions, then you aren't even debating.

 

[Thurisaz]

You keep making these two assumptions without giving any explanation as to why

Well, they're alive as proven by their metabolism and human as proven by their DNA. It's not like there's much to argue about.

An 11-week old zygote is not a "living human being" in the same sense as and 11-year old girl is.

And what sense is that? Why does age make someone human or not? There's no argument for it that isn't entirely arbitrary. Above I use biological terms that identify both being alive and human and it's quite easy to understand that both apply to both a 11 week old zygote and an 11 year old girl.

1) One has a goddamn brain and is aware of it's own existence; 2) one has a spinal cord and nerve endings and is capable of feeling pain.

So what? If you define humans that way, rhinos are human. Those aren't sensible criteria for human life.

Declaring the two "people" so that you can then declare them dead by means of murder, does not just make it so. If you are not going to address the distinctions, then you aren't even debating.

I've proven my case and absolutely obliterated yours, unless you want to continue arguing that rhinos are human.

 

[Higus]

As I thought, you merely accuse but cannot back it up. Liar.

I merely lack the patience to deal with your brand of bullshit. Have the last word, since it’s so important to your pathetic sense of self worth.

 

[Thurisaz]

I merely lack the patience to deal with your brand of bullshit.

Fortunately the truth of the matter isn't going anywhere.

Have the last word, since it’s so important to your pathetic sense of self worth.

Now there's a telling projection. I'm not doing this for myself at all.

 

[sverre054]

Like I've said in other threads, our Supreme Court has always falsely been advertised as having four liberal justices, four conservative justices, and one swing vote.

In reality what we had until recently was four liberal justices, three reliably conservative justices, and two swing votes in Justices Kennedy and Roberts.

Now we finally have the court that was advertised to us for the last several years.

Roberts was mainly a conservative vote, but I think he has been forced to make some ruling, he wouldn't usually make, because he knows how badly it will look upon the court for having such bias in its chief Justice.

 

[octopus]

I would reply to your question with one of my own: How much pain, or any other stimulus, do you remember from your birth, or even months afterward?

Abortion is a painful expedient, and I would love to see huge breakthroughs in contraception to reduce it's needs, but this argument must be held with the struggle between rights and interests in mind, not with emotion and vague conceptions of souls.

What kind of "breakthrough" are you talking about? I'm not an expert on the matter but my mind was blown at all the different options there are these day. My sister just got an implant in her arm that gets rid of the user error that often comes with birth control in pill form. My gf went to planned parenthood and they gave us 3 dozen condoms for free. How much more contraception do we need?!?