Most of the issue could be resolved if society in general embraced the moral idea of only procreating after marriage. The only other times an abortion would be needed at that point is for incest, rape, or if the fetus is endagering the mother's life. That would also seem to be the most intelligent solution. Or if you don't believe in marriage, wait to procreate until you know the person who is you partner is going to stick around. When it comes down to it, the purpose of procreation is to make babies. Not just from a religious point of view, but also an evolutionary point of view.
I would certainly ask for logic and/or evidence if that person wanted the government to pass a law demanding that everybody has to choose chocolate based on that person's evaluation of vanilla and chocolate. In the USA, we have an unfortunate history of trying to legislate social norms (e.g. there used to be laws in some regions making it illegal for you and your wife to have coitus in any position other than missionary). Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/18/foxsexpert-us-sex-laws-amusing-to-just-plain-silly.html Even FOX News agrees that is ridiculous (and I hardly ever agree with FOX News). In the USA we are moving away from laws that dictate social norms (with right-wing conservatives kicking and screaming along the way). That would be a much more accurate way to determine the majority opinion. Since there is not (to my knowledge) such a pole, I extrapolate from the available information. If capital punishment for abortion had popular support, politicians (as you said) are populists so they would be eager to announce their intention to declare abortion=murder and impose capital punishment for the woman and anyone who facilitates abortion. What's that I hear from the politicians on this issue? crickets? My point was that people who claim abortion is murder are lying (maybe to themselves) unless they also claim it deserves capital punishment. That does not apply to you because you want anti-abortion law to be a weak law (much like the law that in Washington, DC that declares the missionary position as the ONLY legal position for coitus, or the law in Alabama that makes it illegal to use sex toys). So... No, I do not expect you to defend the weak positions of those who CLAIM abortion=murder but will not punish it as such. Based on your earlier responses I do not expect you to defend your own value system either.
It would be irrational to ask for such a thing. That's what laws are, the "legislation of social norms". All laws. That's a non-sequitur. The absence of legitimate sources doesn't automatically promote illegitimate ones to being legitimate themselves. You have literally provided no reason to believe this. I would, just not in writing.
Nice bit of hyperbole, please do cite where I have EVER said the unborn are not human .. I know you cannot .. so tell me what is it like to lie about other people? Also using a picture from life site news, given their tendency to lie and distort doesn't give you already low creditability a boost.
"""""""Quote Originally Posted by RandomObserver View Post My point was that people who claim abortion is murder are lying (maybe to themselves) unless they also claim it deserves capital punishment.""""" You: """You have literally provided no reason to believe this."" YES, lots of reasons, so many Anti-Choicers who scream abortion is murder and then when asked what punishment a woman should receive BACK DOWN. They say stupid things like, "Well, it's not really murder". One idiot suggested a fine and 60 days in jail FOR MURDER....One said it was only a "sort of "murder...... I have seen only one poster admit they'd love to see women executed for having an abortion.. Do you care to offer an intelligent response? Your fellow Anti-Choicers never have....
I agree it would be irrational for a person to ask that the government should impose a preference for vanilla or chocolate on the entire population because that is a personal evaluation which cannot be supported by logic and/or evidence. The same goes for anti-abortion sentiment. If a person cannot support their value system with logic and/or evidence, it is irrational to ask the government to enforce that value system on others.
There is a fundamental difference between a law prohibiting a married couple from "doing it cowgirl style" and a law prohibiting a person from driving under the influence of drugs. I know you are intelligent enough to see the difference, so what terminology do you want to use to describe that difference? I usually speak of the first case as "legislating morality" but I am open to learning new terminology.
How about teaching decent comprehensive sex education .. but of course you won't even consider that as you probably have no idea what comprehensive sex education is. - - - Updated - - - I see you, like most pro-lifers, meander off into irrelevance when you can't answer .. it has another name . .evasion.
that is irrelevant, the restrictions would apply equally to either a born or unborn person unless you are asserting that the unborn are different and as such should have different rights to the born? Whether they can survive or not doesn't change the reality that they cannot use another persons body without consent .. by the logic you are using a person should not be able to defend themselves against non-consented injuries because the person "could survive outside"
We agreed that politicians are populists. They succeed or fail based on their ability to "read" public sentiment. I gave you examples of politicians who "pull back" from the position that women should be punished for getting an abortion at all. Has ANY modern politician suggested capital punishment for a woman who gets an abortion? If you can provide a counter example, I can agree that my extrapolation is inconclusive. Why should we believe people are lying to themselves when they claim abortion is murder? Because murder elicits a visceral response. When you hear about a man who strangles his wife during a fight, you want him to go to jail (or get the death penalty). When a woman beats her child with a poker until he is dead, you want capital punishment. When a woman gets an abortion, I know the zygote/embryo/fetus has not yet started personhood, so I see no reason to punish her on behalf of the fetus. People who CLAIM that the zygote/embryo/fetus is already a person and CLAIM that abortion is murder, must naturally feel compelled to punish her as they would for murder (as they would for the woman who beats her child to death with a poker from the fireplace). When I see these same people are NOT clamoring for capital punishment in these cases, I have to assume they really know abortion is NOT murder and the fetus is NOT a person. They are lying to us (or possibly lying to themselves). That is my reason. What is your reason for believing otherwise?
Ugh there is so much wrong with this. Let's just focus on one piece, shall we? You cannot support your value systems with logic and/or evidence. There's no logic and/or evidence that will prove that your preference for the color blue is somehow "true". Similarly, there's no logic and/or evidence that can prove that your preference against murder is "true". Values are undebatable. Logic and/or evidence are only useful to the extent that they can help establish cause-effect relationships in the context of certain assumed values. If we agree to value blue, we can ask what things we can do to proliferate blueness in the world. If we agree to value preventing murder, we can ask what things we can do to prevent murder. These questions can be subject to scientific analysis. But the values, ultimately, cannot.
If we agree to value blue, we do not need to do anything to proliferate blueness in the world. That will happen naturally. It only becomes an issue subject to debate when your neighbor across the street values pink instead, and every time you paint your section of the street blue, they come along and paint their section of the street pink. Then, if you want the government to help you in your quest to proliferate blueness, you should have a compelling argument. Otherwise it falls into the realm of personal freedom (or even religion). In the USA the government does not dictate whether you should be baptized by immersion or by sprinkling. Do you believe the government SHOULD enforce such values?
Yes I understand the distinction you're trying to make, so-called "victimless crimes" vs actual crimes. Asking where abortion falls in that category lands us back on whether or not the fetus has rights, and that old discussion. But it's really irrelevant to my views.
Very questionable, and not comprehensive. I'm not going to look, this whole framework is woefully inept at establishing anything. I never claimed otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that your standards for forming your opinions are extremely low (statements made by politicians, or anecdotal evidence from an online forum). Nor does it matter where we land on this issue. Public opinion has never been a substitute for good arguments. Nor is it relevant to my views. So I'm not sure why you're insisting on these myriad irrelevant directions in this discussion.
Lol wut? If the government doesn't value blue, it's pointless. No compelling argument is going to matter. The word "should" is not part of my vocabulary. Like I said before many times, I've rejected meta-physical morality. This conversation is going nowhere until you recognize that I'm affirming my values, and you're trying to avoid affirming yours.
If you value blue, and you are correct that blue is the "true" color (or "best" color, or whatever your criteria might be) then other reasonable people will also value blue and it is only natural that they will begin buying blue cars and blue suits and painting their surroundings blue. You don't need a law (unless you lack self-confidence and you need the government to pass a law saying "blue is right" so you can feel better about yourself). I value actual people and believe they have a right to decide if they want their pregnancy to produce another person or not. When the mind of a newborn is activated, it begins accumulating the experience that is making it a person. Before that, the human body is just a biological life support system which may or may not survive long enough to become a person.
Take a step back and ask yourself what does this even mean. What does it mean to be correct that "blue is the true color"? This is not a rhetorical or metaphorical question.
Quote Originally Posted by RandomObserver View Post Why should we believe people are lying to themselves when they claim abortion is murder? Because murder elicits a visceral response. When you hear about a man who strangles his wife during a fight, you want him to go to jail (or get the death penalty). When a woman beats her child with a poker until he is dead, you want capital punishment. When a woman gets an abortion, I know the zygote/embryo/fetus has not yet started personhood, so I see no reason to punish her on behalf of the fetus. People who CLAIM that the zygote/embryo/fetus is already a person and CLAIM that abortion is murder, must naturally feel compelled to punish her as they would for murder (as they would for the woman who beats her child to death with a poker from the fireplace). When I see these same people are NOT clamoring for capital punishment in these cases, I have to assume they really know abortion is NOT murder and the fetus is NOT a person. They are lying to us (or possibly lying to themselves). That is my reason. What is your reason for believing otherwise? From that wishy washy answer I see, like most Anti-Choicers , you don't really think abortion is murder......then why do you think it should be illegal?
I was trying to understand this from your perspective. You express a preference and want weak laws to reinforce the preference you have expressed, but if I happened to be involved in writing bills to submit to Congress you have given me no compelling reason to write a bill making blue the official color, or anti-abortion the official position, of the United States. If you want to paint your entire house blue you can do that (in most places) and if you want to risk your own life or health or future having a baby in risky circumstances you are free to do that as well. In other words you have a lot of freedom (in the US and many other countries) to live your life according to whatever arbitrary rules you might want to follow. If you want a law declaring all abortion (except those to save the life of the mother) illegal and you do NOT want it enforced, you are wasting public resources to bolster your own ego (so you can say "see - the law agrees with me"). If you want that law and you DO want it enforced, then you need a compelling argument to justify the impact such a law would have on the lives of actual people who do not agree with your mythology concerning the value of the unborn human body.
You are far more fanatical on abortion issues than I am. I at least would allow people and their own states to make their own choices on abortion AND pay for abortions out of their own pockets. You would allow NO meaningful rights to the unborn. It's all about the woman, isn't it?
Sure. Persuasion depends on the audience, specifically persuasion to action. You will never convince a man who values "blue" to support "red", no matter how much evidence or good reasoning your argument contains. Action is not value free. Until you understand that, you're asking for nonsense. This point applies to governing bodies, and a governing body that largely shared my values of kin, life, duty, etc would probably side with preventing abortions because abortion is a cost to all of these values. As a side point, you paint an extremely naive picture of governments as if they sit around all day listening to ordinary people pitch them objective, scientific arguments for bills, and try to objectively and unbiased come to a decision on which ones are true and good. They don't. They decide how to act based on what will consolidate and increase their power. And lastly, what part of, "This is not a rhetorical or metaphorical question," did you not understand?
No. I'm fanatical about preserving the rights of ALL Americans. Women who are American citizens are American citizens in ALL states. YOU say two different things. First: """ I at least would allow people and their own states to make their own choices on abortion"" BUT then want to TAKE AWAY WOMEN'S CHOICE.....so who are these "people" who you want to have a choice on abortion??? Would that be YOUR people, the Anti-Choice people?? The unborn have NO rights. It IS all about the pregnant woman and her choice. It's no one else's business or concern...it affects NO one else, it is NOT their body.
Is there some magic by which the nature of the woman, or the fetus, changes depending on whether she lives in Bristol, Virginia or Bristol, Tennessee? If so, then it makes sense for each state to decide. Otherwise, abortion rights should be the same no matter where the woman lives. Abortion is a personal rights issue, not a geography or economy issue. I hope you would not say individual states should have the right to re-instate slavery or make it illegal for the average citizen to own a gun.
