Originally Posted by Matthew

-- or masturbation, as you'd just mentioned. Killing is killing is killing. It's why masturbation is "sinful" in the eyes of Catholicism. Only God has the right to decide which of our sperm and eggs will be wasted, not us.

They aren't people. To take it to that extreme smog would be chemical warfare as would have the ingredients to most foods we eat.

Insofar as I disagree with the basic premises of the argument, it looks pretty silly to me.

Its supposed to be silly.

But at least the logic is consistent. Regardless, I think that even the religious version of the view, to say nothing of the non-religious version, involves totally and flagrantly ignoring differences of just the sort that we use all the time, and use uncontroversially. These differences ground everything from denying certain rights of self-determination to the mentally ill or incompetent, to allowing a woman to decide when to order cessation of medical treatment for her completely incapacitated husband. Why, in abortion and abortion alone, are we suddenly supposed to disregard all these differences? It makes nary a lick of sense.

Which I agree with and use an extreme scenario to point out. We all are subject to some bias even objective scientific tests are subject to certain conditions (materials, conditions, ability of testers etc).

Its easy to look from a distance and make a judgment and then walk away feeling righteous. It is something very different to have to live with that decision.

If someone doesn't believe in abortion don't get pregnant or if you do don't have one. If you don't like religion don't go to church, don't like gay people don't be gay, but the people who do should have the same ability to experience their wants as those who don't.

Seems to me that this debate has taken a wrong turn.

The real issue is, " Who should make the choice, the woman herself or the intrusive, bureaucratic nanny state."

I will never understand how those who favor "getting the government off our backs" want it to intrude on the most personal choice a woman will ever have to face.

Originally Posted by theolddog

Seems to me that this debate has taken a wrong turn.

The real issue is, " Who should make the choice, the woman herself or the intrusive, bureaucratic nanny state."

I will never understand how those who favor "getting the government off our backs" want it to intrude on the most personal choice a woman will ever have to face.

Seems your post has take the wrong turn.
Somebody with the opposite view may post.
'Who should make the choice,the state or the feckless woman who refused to use birth control?'
Dont try the rape bs.The amount of abortions carried out due to the woman not bearing to be able to come to term with a rapist's baby is negligable compared to women who abort their babies due to lifestyle choice.
I still think you are Simones sock puppet

Originally Posted by pappillion001

You have a broad definition of life.

It's the proper one as far as I know.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

You have already made a distinction in the paragraph above. Biology alone does not constitute rights. And even if it did a zygote and embryo do not share the same biology as a fetus or person and dead people do not have the same rights as living.

A dead person is not a living organism by definition.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

At what point does it achieve personhood?

You tell me, since you claim to know when a human has rights or not you must know the parameters which establish those rights.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

No it is not it was then something happened and it wasn't, but will be again. It never had it. It does not begin as a moral being, it may become one, but it isn't one.

Ah so once you become a moral being you are always one, but it doesn't work the other way around? Your rights aren't attached to your existence but to your past thoughts?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

The only one who qualifies as a person by any standard

By what standard is a baby a person?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Days, weeks or years? At 8 years not only is it no longer comparable but pretty much meaningless in an abortion debate.

In other words you don't want to answer the question.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Nobody ever said those were reasons for an abortion, but I think you knew that.

I know that, which is why bringing up punishment and war was irrelavant.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Innocence or guilt is irrelevant because you made the statement there
you don't violate rights to correct a previous violation. That would prohibit
killing for any reason such as capital punishment, self defense

Capital punishment and self-defense are not violations of rights.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I have to do something to warrant capital punishment and I am capable of making my own choice concerning your future and mine for that matter.

Not in subjectivist ethics, all you have to do is allow me to have the military advantage required to kill you for any reasons I deem fit. In subjectivist ethics there is 'my' morality and 'your' morality; there is no 'correct' morality to stop be philosophically, I have only to assert what I want to myself.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

At what point is a person a person with rights

Well?

Originally Posted by theolddog

Seems to me that this debate has taken a wrong turn.

The real issue is, " Who should make the choice, the woman herself or the intrusive, bureaucratic nanny state."

I will never understand how those who favor "getting the government off our backs" want it to intrude on the most personal choice a woman will ever have to face.

The real issue is the morality of the action. If it is moral than no one has the right to interfere, if it is not then everyone does.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber
You Zealots are the ones claiming that God is omniscient, Which means he has the capacity to know everything. If He knows everything that will happen before it happens then every abortion is part of his plan.

That's stupid. Foreknowledge isn't determinism.

But here's the legacy of your father Satan (John 8:44), operating through your liberal, left-wing infanticide centers:

2 workers plead guilty to murder in abortion case

PHILADELPHIA — Two abortion clinic workers pleaded guilty Thursday to third-degree murder in deaths that occurred at a Philadelphia clinic where seven babies were allegedly born alive, then killed with scissors...

2 workers plead guilty to murder in abortion case - US news - msnbc.com

Baby butchers. You radicals ought to be real proud of that. Avoid personal responsibility (the hallmark trait of liberalism) and kill the innocent babies.

Originally Posted by gansao

Seems your post has take the wrong turn.
Somebody with the opposite view may post.
'Who should make the choice,the state or the feckless woman who refused to use birth control?'
Dont try the rape bs.The amount of abortions carried out due to the woman not bearing to be able to come to term with a rapist's baby is negligable compared to women who abort their babies due to lifestyle choice.
I still think you are Simones sock puppet

So who SHOULD make the choice in the scenario you propose?
For me, it must always and forever be the woman.
BTW, why is it in your example that the MAN is not the one who refused to use birth control?
In any case, I do not want the nanny state involved in the most intimate choice a woman will ever have to make.
BTW, who is Simone?

Originally Posted by Easyrider

...here's the legacy of your father Satan (John 8:44), operating through your liberal, left-wing infanticide centers:

2 workers plead guilty to murder in abortion case

Baby butchers. You radicals ought to be real proud of that. Avoid personal responsibility (the hallmark trait of liberalism) and kill the innocent babies.

Insofar as I believe that infanticide is morally wrong and rightly illegal, I find the crime ghastly and the murder charges quite justified. I continue to believe, however, that there is a major difference between abortion and infanticide -- and this is especially so for the 80+% of abortions that are performed during the first trimester.

Meanwhile, here's the legacy of your side:

Scott Roeder gets Hard 50 in murder of abortion provider George Tiller | Wichita Eagle

Your pride and joy, no doubt!

> flush! <

Originally Posted by theolddog

So who SHOULD make the choice in the scenario you propose?

No one, it's not a choice. That's like asking 'who should decide whether anyone is allowed to commit murder, theft, rape etc..'.

When there is only one correct answer it's not a matter of authority anymore, the only thing that matters is how well the moral truth is translated to applicable and enforceable laws.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Insofar as I believe that infanticide is morally wrong and rightly illegal, I find the crime ghastly and the murder charges quite justified. I continue to believe, however, that there is a major difference between abortion and infanticide -- and this is especially so for the 80+% of abortions that are performed during the first trimester.

Meanwhile, here's the legacy of your side:

Scott Roeder gets Hard 50 in murder of abortion provider George Tiller | Wichita Eagle

Your pride and joy, no doubt!

> flush! <

So what is it that a baby has that a fetus doesn't that garners so much respect from you?

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's the proper one as far as I know.


A dead person is not a living organism by definition.

Avoid answer #1

Yes, but this was not in response to living organisms, just biology and individuals your addition of living organisms is new.

You tell me, since you claim to know when a human has rights or not you must know the parameters which establish those rights.

Avoid answer #2

see below

Ah so once you become a moral being you are always one,

Would you disagree?

but it doesn't work the other way around?

I don't see how it could

Your rights aren't attached to your existence

If it was that simple then bark or cartoon characters could be moral beings, they exist.

By what standard is a baby a person?

A baby can't be aborted, its already out of the womb.

Generally things like essential organs that work are one, self awareness, consciousness, thinking, the ability to respond and and perceive stimuli, living, breathing oxygen, birth are some that people think make a person a person in some combination. Only birth stands by itself as establishing personhood, but they still do not have full rights as adults do.

In other words you don't want to answer the question.

You skip half my post and then come back with this? I intentionally pointed out where you avoided questions in response to this.

I did, your question wasn't clear and I asked what age and pointed out an 8 year old was much to far along to be aborted, at that age they are people.

I know that, which is why bringing up punishment and war was irrelavant.

No, used as you did in your earlier post makes them irrelevant, asking how you can justify certain types of killing and not others is relevant

Capital punishment and self-defense are not violations of rights.

Either killing is killing or it isn't. If you can justify some killing then how can the right to life be an inalienable right?

Not in subjectivist ethics, all you have to do is allow me to have the military advantage required to kill you for any reasons I deem fit. In subjectivist ethics there is 'my' morality and 'your' morality; there is no 'correct' morality to stop be philosophically, I have only to assert what I want to myself.

And there is the morality that we agree on that is necessary for peaceful coexistence which permits each to have the best chance of reaching individual potential. We don't leave these things to your bias or mine. We have judges who have impartial interests. Our laws and punishments are not made by you or I alone and are not kept secret nor do they vary at the whim of one person. It may be subjective but its an extreme exaggeration to portray it as you have.

People have been on this path for sometime and we have not wiped each other off the planet because we can't agree on morality.

Well?

Yes I am still waiting for your answer.

And I see you skipped several other points by just ignoring them.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

That's stupid. Foreknowledge isn't determinism.

But here's the legacy of your father Satan (John 8:44), operating through your liberal, left-wing infanticide centers:

2 workers plead guilty to murder in abortion case

PHILADELPHIA — Two abortion clinic workers pleaded guilty Thursday to third-degree murder in deaths that occurred at a Philadelphia clinic where seven babies were allegedly born alive, then killed with scissors...

2 workers plead guilty to murder in abortion case - US news - msnbc.com

Baby butchers. You radicals ought to be real proud of that. Avoid personal responsibility (the hallmark trait of liberalism) and kill the innocent babies.

Should we go on about the church being filled with pedophiles as being the reason they are against abortion?

A couple nut cases are not a true representation of the typical person.

Originally Posted by theolddog

So who SHOULD make the choice in the scenario you propose?
For me, it must always and forever be the woman.
BTW, why is it in your example that the MAN is not the one who refused to use birth control?
In any case, I do not want the nanny state involved in the most intimate choice a woman will ever have to make.
BTW, who is Simone?

Well that went over your head
You made a biased post and I demonstrated that one could easily make a biased post with opposite views..they were both biased.
You cant help yourself can you? Even labelling the state' the nanny state' to help your biased argument.

If a fetus is sentient then IMO it has rights.
Most terminations are performed when the fetus would not have developed enough to experience stress or pain during an abortion.
My problem is when the fetus reaches a stage when it may have had a chance to survive if it were born naturally or feel stress and/or pain during the termination.
In the very rare cases when the pregnant woman requires a late abortion then the welfare of the fetus should be considered as a factor.
This happens in the UK and probably in the US .
In the UK there a fetus cannot be terminated after 24 weeks I believe but some people think this should be changed to 20 weeks.
This is not interfering in womens rights to their body.It is protecting a sentient being from a painful and stressful death.
IMO terminating a sentient fetus is no better than euthanizing a new born.

Another point..if you believe that the woman should have total control over the fetus then why should they not have the ultimate responsibility over contraception. Isnt that the ulitimate control over their own body? Do you think women are too stupid to insist a man wears a condom but wise enough to insist a sentient fetus is torn to bits if it impedes on her lifestyle?
As I said.. a Simone sock puppet.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Insofar as I believe that infanticide is morally wrong and rightly illegal, I find the crime ghastly and the murder charges quite justified. I continue to believe, however, that there is a major difference between abortion and infanticide -- and this is especially so for the 80+% of abortions that are performed during the first trimester.

Meanwhile, here's the legacy of your side:

Scott Roeder gets Hard 50 in murder of abortion provider George Tiller | Wichita Eagle

Your pride and joy, no doubt!

> flush! <

Nice try, preppie. The difference is that the right-to-life movement doesn't have extermination centers for the innocent unborn.

Butchers.

Originally Posted by Freedom

No one, it's not a choice. That's like asking 'who should decide whether anyone is allowed to commit murder, theft, rape etc..'.

When there is only one correct answer it's not a matter of authority anymore, the only thing that matters is how well the moral truth is translated to applicable and enforceable laws.


So what is it that a baby has that a fetus doesn't that garners so much respect from you?

An independent existence.

Originally Posted by gansao

Well that went over your head
You made a biased post and I demonstrated that one could easily make a biased post with opposite views..they were both biased.
You cant help yourself can you? Even labelling the state' the nanny state' to help your biased argument.

If a fetus is sentient then IMO it has rights.
Most terminations are performed when the fetus would not have developed enough to experience stress or pain during an abortion.
My problem is when the fetus reaches a stage when it may have had a chance to survive if it were born naturally or feel stress and/or pain during the termination.
In the very rare cases when the pregnant woman requires a late abortion then the welfare of the fetus should be considered as a factor.
This happens in the UK and probably in the US .
In the UK there a fetus cannot be terminated after 24 weeks I believe but some people think this should be changed to 20 weeks.
This is not interfering in womens rights to their body.It is protecting a sentient being from a painful and stressful death.
IMO terminating a sentient fetus is no better than euthanizing a new born.

Another point..if you believe that the woman should have total control over the fetus then why should they not have the ultimate responsibility over contraception. Isnt that the ulitimate control over their own body? Do you think women are too stupid to insist a man wears a condom but wise enough to insist a sentient fetus is torn to bits if it impedes on her lifestyle?
As I said.. a Simone sock puppet.

The IMO in your post is the crucial point.

I respect your opinion. I respect that the women in your family agree with and support your POV.

What I have ZERO respect for is your idea that you think your opinion should be made law in the universe.

I have three daughters and a granddaughter of child bearing age, and they and I will never allow you to impose your subjective POV on us.

I trust the women in my family to make choices that they feel are in their best interest with no interference from any profetallifer, thank you very much.