Why do you believe in God ?

Stating a fact - is not getting pissy

The above is getting pissy Look - It is one thing to have a personal moral position - quite another to force that belief on someone else. It is not that I disagree with or do not understand your moral position - what you lack is "an argument" that justifies forcing that belief on others.

I posed the question a number of times now and you continue to talk over that question as if it did not exist.

I made the same argument you did. Fox came up with a response - paraphrasing " Is there a time limit on the right to self defense" ?

The answer to this question is not as "obvious" as you would suggest. The "if a woman puts up with her partner beating her .. does she void her future right to self defense" is a sound argument (in all its ramifications).

I do not claim that there is not a way around this argument but, I have not yet found one.

Correct - but, this is also true in reverse - the fetus's individual liberties end when they threaten the life of another.

And I have responded to your suggestion ... what you have not done is addressed Fox's response (see beating example above). I made the same argument as you have done initially - Fox's response challenges this argument.

How is the potential death, not relevant ? If you have a cough and I say - "take this pill - its unlikely but it has the potential to kill or harm you" do you not think twice about taking that pill ? Perhaps you think it is better to to try and tough it out (take lots of vitamin C and so on) rather than taking an antibiotic (and in all but the most serious cases you would be correct.

In this case your cough might effect those around you so I could say... for this reason I am going to force you to take the antibiotic. Do I have this right ?
I could strengthen my case and say "suppose you infect someone that has a challenged immune system such that getting a cough could kill them"

As Fox points out - the statistical probability of women wanting abortion late in term is very low - such that women doing this should have their heads examined.

Suppose under examination this woman says that she had a dream - and in that dream she died in childbirth.

I feel that somewhere there is a refutation to the self defense argument but, it is certainly not obvious and you have yet to come up with one yet.

You cant just say " Its only a potential" This is not an argument .. you have to explain why "Only being a potential" is sufficient. If it was a ridiculously small/insignificant potential (say on the level of being hit by a meteorite) I would agree with you but, its not. You yourself have admitted that the potential is not insignificant.

We are into a bit of a grey area here. Can we say "Well its a small potential so the rights of the child win out" ? What is "Small" and is there not a slippery slope here. 1 in 10 is "small" but, would you willingly undertake an activity where there was a 1 in 10 chance of death or risk of harm ?

Do we want to start giving the state power to be able to force people to subject themselves to the possibility of death (or harm) on the basis - "its only a small potential" ? Should we bring back the draft on the basis that "there is only a small potential" of death ?

My solution is to let the people decide. In general the legitimate authority of Gov't extends only to acts that are injurious to others. In this case it would seem that the Gov't does have some legitimate authority once we "legitimately" classify the fetus as a "child/person". This authority however is challenged by the fact that it is a conflict of rights and it is a grey area. As such this takes it out of the legitimate authority of Gov't.

In such cases you must default to "we the people". What is required (and I can explain why this is later) is not a simple majority mandate (as this would be tyranny of the majority). What is required is an overwhelming majority ( at least 2/3rd's or even 75%).

This would satisfy the criteria for legal legitimacy. If it is so obvious ( as you say) that in the later term the risk of death/harm is deemed to be low enough that the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the woman then, it should be easy to garner an overwhelming majority.

 

Now this is silly due to the use of disingenuous language and fallacy.

1) Of course the "life" in vetro is human. That does not make a single human cell, which is both alive and human, a living human.

This is the all too common anti-abort trick of intentionally confusing the descriptive adjective use of the word human ( human cell, human heart, human feces) with the noun (a human, a living human)

Just because something is "human" does not give it rights, including the right to life.

2) the potential argument is fallacy ( unless you can ascribe a value to that potential - and make a coherent argument based on potential which you have not done).

Just because something has the potential to be something else .. does not make it that something else. That a zygote has the potential to create a human does not make it a human in the present. Just because a fetus in the early stages has the potential to become a human - does not make it a human in the present.

It is not about "denying that it is human" .. it is about denying that it is "a human". Saying that something has the potential to become a human - does just that. It says that it is not a human in the present.

 

Easy to claim. Not so easy to prove. You're just trying to paint a smiley face on the news that abortions have dropped out of favor for the many.

 

Because pro choice and pro slavery minds think alike and act alike. They are free to get what they want (abortions on demand, free labor)
due to the fact that they dehumanized their respective victims and made a political virtue to others of their disregard for the lives of others
that could not speak for themselves.
It's real simple.

 

Are you pleased with your sophistry?
Of course human feces- (?) ...your example, not mine-
does not make for a human being. Got any other startling bits of wisdom to pass on, Merlin?

And of course you perform that trick you identify in the obverse, calling a viable human being in vitro a "potential future human life" which denies it's humanity, making it easier to slaughter and dispose of (or if not you per se, then a like thinker).
Denying what that thing the mother is carrying around is also using language in a disingenuous and fallacious way. If it's not a human life then what is it? A shark? A potato? Some pretzels?

Some people don't believe what has been delivered at full term is a human being at all until it has actually vacated the birth canal (making it all the easier to perform late term abortions which are especially gruesome and barbaric practices). I hope you don't carry your
silliness that far.

As you know I concede reluctantly that abortion is sometimes a necessity if done legally, within a time frame that removes those human cells before they coalesce and develop into a feeling, thinking human being. But I won't stop identifying something that will become fully human, if given a chance, as a human being in order to please a bunch of language police abortophiles.

You seem to love to argue. Find something worth arguing over.

 

...and someone worth arguing with

 

And your personal subjective
preferences do not constitute fact. Find out what facts are...they are not your opinions.

You are very enamored with this
"self defense" argument and I haven't figured out why. Both the mother and the fetus, as a human being deserving of protection by our Constitution like everyone else, have their rights to life.

The fetus may not endanger the life of the mother and likewise the mother may not terminate the life of the fetus, after a certain medically approved time limit passes. If the fetus is found to be a danger to the mother's health than it will be terminated, not having lived up to it's end of the deal, so to speak. Fair is fair.

If one believes that "thing" in the womb is indeed a human being (as codified by law in all fifty states has stated) then it seems
logical to adopt a very strict pro life stance, though I do not, because even as a zygote that thing being exterminated represents a human life. But, the compromise has been made. We will respect the mother's life and health even at the expense of the human life of others.

So, is there a lime limit on the right to self defense? Yes! Absolutely yes.
Because one cannot legally and morally assert their right to "self defense" (self preservation is a more apt description) at the expense of another human being.

The people in a half filled row boat trying to leave the sinking Titanic do not have the right to simply row away because to take on many other survivors would mean their chances for survival are greatly lessened or their personal suffering would increase.

Waiting for others to enter their row boat also increases the chances of being sucked under the water by the rapidly sinking Titanic. Yet to row off while people are swimming through the icy North Atlantic waters towards their boat is not a moral or legal option either, self preservation or not.
Any legal inquiry after the fact would find a boat only half full of survivors that abandoned the others to be guilty of manslaughter, at the least, whether they put themselves in more peril or not by helping out.

The time limit on self preservation is limited by how long it will take other
survivors to reach the safety of the boat. All rights have limits.

The woman did not ask to get pregnant yet she discovers she is. A child in the womb does not ask to have it's head removed from the birth canal so a doctor can puncture it's skull and have it's brains removed.

A woman who does not want a child will have an abortion performed not matter what. The law only asks that it be done in an expeditious manner and that is a fair and just request. Where is there any conflict at all? This "time limit" is part of the give and take between parties whose self interests may not be identical.

The idea that someone who decides the day her child is due she must abort is being robbed of her right to self preservation (when doctors refuse her demand) is an obnoxious one and it totally ignores the rights of child in vitro.
You think this argument (no time limits on self preservation) has merit? Incredible.

That's why the states have striven to strike a balance between the rights of all parties concerned.

I've covered every base and contingency I can think of.

The state makes the case for the unborn and his, or her, right to self defense. You act as if the woman is the only party
with a right to self preservation. If a woman's fears and trepidations come out in her dreams how can the law address that?
You are dealing in absurdities now.

Since any pregnant woman CAN have her abortion I fail to see why you are wasting my time with these endless repetitive circular arguments.

Women DO have the right to their abortion. Have you forgotten that? This is way more thought and effort than I want to put into this relatively settled issue.

 

How does my pro choice view get imposed on you???

 

Abortions are falling and so is teen pregnancy...thanks to sex education classes. I taught that in nyc....

 

It doesn't as I think most states have a sensible approach to the issue, finally, that strikes a balance between mother and child.
But that's not for lack of trying by NARAL and other abortophiles. Like the Nazis, gonorrhea and movie musicals, they (the abortion zealots) are always poised for a comeback if certain people got there way.

 

I hate when people who are ignorant of NARAL and what it does make it a name comparisons to Nazis in gonorrhea and other silliness. Just admit it you have uterus envy

 

Like I said...they are abortion zealots. And I intensely dislike zealots.

 

And I'm very glad I don't hate women the way you appear to detest men.

 

You don't !!! You just want to take away their rights and control them ....that's a pretty good sign of hate.

 

Now that is rich.. I point out your logical fallacies and incorrect use of terminology and you accuse me of Sophistry. Don't transfer your issues on to me. If you can't take the heat .. get out of the kitchen.

I am not the one conflated the descriptive adjective use of the word "human" with the noun. You are ... and then you have the gall to cry about it and get all pissy.

If you want to make the "Potential" argument .. have at it - and good luck with that. Do you think this is the first time I have heard that argument ?

FACT: just because something has the potential to "become" human at some point in the future - does not make it a human in the present.

If you want to attribute some kind of value to that potential .. Fine .. then make an argument.

I will even help you get started. The potential that a fetus might turn into a human at some point has value "because" ... (now you get to fill in the rest).

 

You do much talking but failed to address the claim under discussion with a valid argument. (something other than fallacy .. all of which I have listed previously)

You then claim circular reasoning when I have done no such thing. It is quite apparent that your skills in logic are lacking.

 

Actually it is very easy to prove.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...n-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

If anti-abortion legislation was causing the decline in abortions then it would ONLY be apparent in those specific states where it is happening and birth rates would be INCREASING in those states.

Obamacare access to contraception is NATIONWIDE and abortions are declining NATIONWIDE proving that it is access to contraception that is the primary and most important factor in the reduction of abortions.

Furthermore the decline in abortions coincides with the implementation of Obamacare and not the anti-abortion legislation.

 

Your fallacious opinion denigrating and demeaning women has absolutely no factual basis whatsoever.

Women who face the prospect of having an abortion have to make an agonizing choice as to the impact that an unwanted child will have on their life and whether they will be capable of providing for the unwanted child.

DISPARAGING what women must go through is the actual DEHUMANIZING that is happening here and it is the anti-abortionists who are doing it to many women who are already mothers of small children.

The anti-abortionists are the ones nefariously trying to wrap themselves in "political virtue" by claiming to have "morality on their side" while they IGNORE the IMMORALITY of FORCING a woman to risk her life during pregnancy only to bear and raise an UNWANTED child.

And since you raised this topic explain the "virtue" of bringing an unwanted and potentially unloved child into this world?

How is it NOT morally repugnant to give birth to an infant that is going to spend it's entire life wondering why it was unloved?

Studies have PROVEN that unwanted children end up doing poorly in school and are more likely to do drugs and become criminals.

If anyone is DEHUMANIZING here it is the anti-abortionists who are IMPOSING it on UNWANTED children.

 

I am sure you hate the nra. ..they must be gun zealots .
I am sure you hate the naacp...they must be race zealots. I am sure you hate the cancer society..they must be cancer zealots

 

And then when it’s born, they complain because the woman needs public assistance

 

He seems to hate human rights zealots, too....those rotten rights-loving people !

 

Yes. That's a highly abstract and complex concept (that human poop is not a human being) but I think I understand now. I never looked at things like that before. What a revelation!
Thank you so much for sharing your massive intellect and mastery of this matter.You are an inspiration to me.

Oh no, not me! I can't possibly keep up with you. You go on ahead without me.

 

No valid argument? Not even the Titanic analogy? Hmmm...how about that.

 

Well the American Cancer Society works to save lives as their primary mission. And NARAL? Not so much.
So do I admire people that zealously work to make people healthy and cancer free? You bet!

 

Abortion, timely legal abortion, is available to all in every state of the union. Your incessant yapping completely ignores the facts.