- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I really would like to understand the pro-choice POV as it relates to life
Posted on 7/24/19 at 11:37 am to bfniii
Posted on 7/24/19 at 11:37 am to bfniii
Oh i understand - just pointing out your need for ad hominem attacks.
You can't murder something that is not a person. The same way I can't murder my arm. It's part of my body.
Morally right? Do you feel the same way about capital punishment?
You keep using the word person, but a fetus is not a person. It has the POTENTIAL to be a person.
You can't murder something that is not a person. The same way I can't murder my arm. It's part of my body.
Morally right? Do you feel the same way about capital punishment?
You keep using the word person, but a fetus is not a person. It has the POTENTIAL to be a person.
1
Posted on 7/24/19 at 11:52 am to Bass Tiger
You don't even have to pin us down on that.
Look it's a shitty thing. But it's a world of shite options.
Solve the problem before it's a problem with sex education.
Work to build better adoption options in the US, demand your state reps go through with creating better secure avenues of surrogacy as it applies to adoptive couples or the father's themselves.
That's a better use of the money and time going to pro-life movements anyway.
Because you're not going to get rid of abortion. But you can reduce it.
Look it's a shitty thing. But it's a world of shite options.
Solve the problem before it's a problem with sex education.
Work to build better adoption options in the US, demand your state reps go through with creating better secure avenues of surrogacy as it applies to adoptive couples or the father's themselves.
That's a better use of the money and time going to pro-life movements anyway.
Because you're not going to get rid of abortion. But you can reduce it.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 12:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Outside the fields of mathematics and a few of the sciences, ALL analyses becomes subjective to some degree ... though I think the term “arbitrary” largely overstates the point.
Ultimately there isn't a pro-abortion argument that cannot be applied to other groups of humans post-birth. All arguments wind up being completely arbitrary and would have devastating repercussions if applied outside the womb.
I have addressed your concern to MY satisfaction when I express the view that a negative right NOT to be killed (once vested) should not be subjective to revocation without due process of law. Under such a regimen, the lives of the coma-ridden, the senile, the retarded and (yes!) the “sleeping” would be safe from extra-judicial termination.
Yes, that is subjective to some degree and thus unsatisfying to a person who insists upon an objective, B&W answer to every question the universe can throw at us. But the universe does not provide us with very many challenges which lend themselves to a simplistic, binary solution set, and drawing the line at the millisecond of conception is no less arbitrary and subjective ... it is simply easier to measure than some other “lines” related to this topic.
The simple fact is that the percentage of the population that would SUPPORT that “line” (prohibition of even the “morning after” pill) is measured in the single digits. No just society is going to allow less than ten percent of its population to dictate behavior to the other 90%.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 3:21 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:name 1 time I have ever done this in 15 years here
just pointing out your need for ad hominem attacks
quote:and the baby is a person from the moment of conception
You can't murder something that is not a person
quote:an unborn baby has committed no crime. That is a major extenuating circumstance that invalidates the analogy attempt, but you knew that already, didn't you?
Do you feel the same way about capital punishment?
quote:prove it. There is no personhood gap between parents and offspring
a fetus is not a person
Posted on 7/24/19 at 3:26 pm to bfniii
quote:Everyone raise your hand if you knew without reading that this meaningless phrase would appear in this post. Raise your OTHER hand if you knew that the post would included no substantive analysis in support of the assertion.
There is no personhood gap
Posted on 7/24/19 at 4:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:how academically rigorous of you. So funny. You're tacitly admitting that you consider your "analysis" so weak that it can't withstand debate. You're just parroting already refuted assertions
I have addressed your concern to MY satisfaction
quote:there is no such thing. You made this up so you don't have to acknowledge a person's right to live, which is a positive right. Any sane, rational, objective person would be able to recognize this
a negative right NOT to be killed
quote:which happens at the moment of conception
once vested
quote:we're not talking about the law. We're talking about morality.
without due process of law
quote:first, it's so funny that I introduced a challenge to your analysis that you hadn't thought of and you've clearly wrestled with it to the extent that you've added this new wrinkle to your responses. Second, again, you're operating from a legal presumption when the discussion is about morality. "Is it right" as opposed to "Is it legal." Thus, you are missing the slippery slope aspect of the analogy. Iow, if you strip away legislated assurance, you could apply abortion-murder to already born people. So, you tried to wiggle out of the logical outworking of your position but it didn't work
Under such a regimen, the lives of the coma-ridden, the senile, the retarded and (yes!) the “sleeping” would be safe from extra-judicial termination
quote:hello straw man
a person who insists upon an objective, B&W answer to every question the universe can throw at us
quote:is there a personhood gap between parents and offspring? If not, prove it. Otherwise, you're being narcissistic
drawing the line at the millisecond of conception is no less arbitrary and subjective
quote:this is a rhetorical fallacy called ad populum and nothing about the majority makes a society "just" simplicatur
No just society is going to allow less than ten percent of its population to dictate behavior to the other 90%.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 4:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:prove that it's meaningless. You're so full of crap. You think you've "carefully considered" this issue but your analysis is junk. It's so bad you can't respond to me on substance. You're just another 90proof/ibfreeman
this meaningless phrase
quote:? No "analysis" is needed. It's a brute fact.
the post would included no substantive analysis in support of the assertion.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 4:17 pm to L.A.
They value women’s lives, you don’t. It is really that simple
Posted on 7/24/19 at 4:28 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, et al. In order to poo poo personhood, you would have to be able to show what it is the fetus lacks that it needs to become a person and when the fetus acquires it. Of course, there's no way you can do that either medically or metaphysically. Moreover, you have to deny the brute fact that the fetus is a distinct person from the moment of conception. Iow, that everything needed for personhood is already present in the constitution of the organism. The only thing left is development. You have tried this with your sapience qualifier but you admitted you don't know precisely what it is or when it is fully manifested.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 11:40 am to bfniii
So you can justify and support state sanctioned murder of a human - some of which may be innocent - indeed some ARE and have been proven innocent through DNA tests, etc.
It's not an analogy. It IS the murder of innocent humans. You are perfectly fine with unilaterally murdering innocent humans in one instance and not another.
I thought we were discussing what is "morally right". If this is your starting point, how do you justify any capital punishment, knowing that you will be murdering a small percentage of innocent people?
If you can let a few slide in this instance, then why not in the other?
It's not an analogy. It IS the murder of innocent humans. You are perfectly fine with unilaterally murdering innocent humans in one instance and not another.
I thought we were discussing what is "morally right". If this is your starting point, how do you justify any capital punishment, knowing that you will be murdering a small percentage of innocent people?
If you can let a few slide in this instance, then why not in the other?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 11:46 am to TigerBlazer
quote:
So you can justify and support state sanctioned murder of a human - some of which may be innocent - indeed some ARE and have been proven innocent through DNA tests, etc. It's not an analogy. It IS the murder of innocent humans. You are perfectly fine with unilaterally murdering innocent humans in one instance and not another. I thought we were discussing what is "morally right". If this is your starting point, how do you justify any capital punishment, knowing that you will be murdering a small percentage of innocent people? If you can let a few slide in this instance, then why not in the other?
If you're referring to capital punishment for murder the odds of an innocence man being put to death is nil today. I believe in order to get the death penalty the accused has to be proven to have committed the crime with witnesses, DNA, by admission, etc. No one is getting the death penalty on circumstantial BS today.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 12:12 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
If you're referring to capital punishment for murder the odds of an innocence man being put to death is nil today. I believe in order to get the death penalty the accused has to be proven to have committed the crime with witnesses, DNA, by admission, etc. No one is getting the death penalty on circumstantial BS today.
But knowing that there is a chance, albeit a very small one - you are still justifying the murder of innocent people, are you not? Using your logic, the "morally right" thing to do is to NOT MURDER anyone.
What makes it "morally right" to murder anyone, whether they committed a crime or not?
Posted on 7/28/19 at 11:28 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:you're conflating 2 different problems. the judicial/justice system being flawed does not excuse murder of unborn babies for convenience. people who support capital punishment do so on the premise that the justice system is going to be conducted as fair as is humanly possible.
some of which may be innocent
quote:we make the best judgement we can given the information at the time. again, that does nothing to diminish the heinous nature of convenience baby murder. refining the process through means such as dna testing helps to reduce the number of mistakes.
some ARE and have been proven innocent through DNA tests, etc
quote:and this is a strawman. no one who supports capital punishment is ok with innocent people being executed. moreover, you are wrong to characterize it as murder. it most certainly is not. abortion, otoh, involves no trial for each instance of murder. no one speaks for the baby and no unborn baby has EVER been indicted of a potential crime. the mother gets to unilaterally hack away, some of them knowing that the baby's body parts are sold for a profit, given the recent revelations by veritas. if you think these two situations are analogous, i am sad for you. they're not even remotely the same thing
You are perfectly fine with unilaterally murdering innocent humans in one instance and not another.
quote:you DON'T know that. you are deciding on the moral thing to do. downstream flaws in the system do not impinge on that one bit
how do you justify any capital punishment, knowing that you will be murdering a small percentage of innocent people?
quote:no one is doing that
If you can let a few slide
Posted on 8/1/19 at 12:04 pm to bfniii
quote:
you are wrong to characterize it as murder. it most certainly is not. abortion, otoh, involves no trial for each instance of murder.
Are we talking about what is "morally right" or the legal system? You can justify it however you like (just like I said you would) but it is still the state sanctioned killing of a human being – some of which are innocent.
Killing of an innocent human being is not murder? Tell that to his family.
quote:
people who support capital punishment do so on the premise that the justice system is going to be conducted as fair as is humanly possible.
As fair as humanly possible? Humans are not perfect, which makes the system imperfect. Which leads to mistakes – which means innocent people get put to death.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News