- 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: Illegal Abortion = Big Government
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:05 pm to PointsInCase
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:05 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
So the government is protecting the mother from punishment by the government? Nice way of twisting the narrative.
More logic than narrative.
0
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:05 pm to PointsInCase
The woman has a right to the same consequences of every other person that chooses to participate in activities.
The woman makes a choice to have sex and the unborn baby pays the price for the inconvenience? I'm not even religious and I see that as fricked up.
The woman makes a choice to have sex and the unborn baby pays the price for the inconvenience? I'm not even religious and I see that as fricked up.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:13 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
I'm not equating an unborn fetus with all other non-human groups of cells. I care more about my dog than a tree, but that doesn't mean dogs deserve the same rights as humans.
Once again this is obscure to me. I asked a couple of straight forward questions.
Is the unborn human fetus an individual complete human? If so finding abortion immoral is logical. But then advocating that others should have the right to choose another’s death is not logical. No false equivalency here. Human = immoral murder.
Or is the human fetus less than a human being? If so, then you are declaring a simple outpatient medical procedure immoral.
It’s not apples and oranges, or dogs and trees. It’s either not human (simple medical procedure) or a human (simple murder).
Now if I’m missing a subtle nuance in your argument, please clearly state it.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:38 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:It's non-human just like a dog is non-human. It's on about the same level. Willfully killing it is wrong, but its not murder. FWIW I don't think it should be illegal to kill a dog.
It’s not apples and oranges, or dogs and trees. It’s either not human (simple medical procedure) or a human (simple murder).
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:44 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
a government would be placing the rights of a group of cells above those of the pregnant woman.
You need to work on your political and legal theory, not to mention ethics. Or just start with basic logical reasoning. And I say that agnostically with respect to the abortion debate. This is just a shite argument.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:48 pm to PointsInCase
quote:What about at 9 months. . .when health is not a factor?
In a society where abortion is illegal (even right after conception), a government would be placing the rights of a group of cells above those of the pregnant woman. Regardless of the moral implications, it's the ultimate BIG government move, right?
Still just a group of cells?
Posted on 3/28/18 at 9:54 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
It's non-human
Now I understand the logic of your pro-choice legal position.
I’m a little shaky on your perception of the immorality of it. If killing a dog improves a human life the I (yes my values) would find it moral. While I would not eat Rover, I do not hold cultures that do as immoral.
I hold that the unborn are unique individuals as fully human as myself. And I would not have a problem with defending my position logically.
But I would NOT condemn your morality on the abortion issue since what is killed in your opinion is something equivalent to a pesky mosquito. But pardon me if I think you wrong.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 10:02 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
The reason murder is illegal is not because it is morally wrong, as the Constitution does not legislate morality. Murder is illegal because an individual (the murderer) is infringing on the right to life of the victim. It's about guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all.
In a society where abortion is illegal (even right after conception), a government would be placing the rights of a group of cells above those of the pregnant woman. Regardless of the moral implications, it's the ultimate BIG government move, right?
Your mother wasn't bright enough to abort you. Right?
Posted on 3/28/18 at 10:33 pm to pressurized
Murder isn't illegal be cause it is a violation of our Constitution's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" phrase. Murder was illegal all over the West long before our Constitution was written. It was illegal because:
1. Both Christianity and Judaism taught that it was wrong.
2. Societal consensus was that is should be illegal.
If society developed a consensus that abortion was murder, abortion would be made illegal. But we are far from that consensus. We don't even have a consensus on when human life begins. So, lacking that consensus, the law leaves abortion matters to the individual. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
1. Both Christianity and Judaism taught that it was wrong.
2. Societal consensus was that is should be illegal.
If society developed a consensus that abortion was murder, abortion would be made illegal. But we are far from that consensus. We don't even have a consensus on when human life begins. So, lacking that consensus, the law leaves abortion matters to the individual. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 10:41 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
If society developed a consensus that abortion was murder, abortion would be made illegal. But we are far from that consensus. We don't even have a consensus on when human life begins. So, lacking that consensus, the law leaves abortion matters to the individual. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Roe was big government intrusion personified by a judicial nondemocratic ruling.
It would require a Herculean effort to amend the Constitution or a simple SCOTUS opinion to reverse it.
If Roe is reversed, the fighting and deciding will become smaller government battles where individual choices would once again rule.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 10:45 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
The reason murder is illegal is not because it is morally wrong, as the Constitution does not legislate morality. Murder is illegal because an individual (the murderer) is infringing on the right to life of the victim. It's about guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all.
In a society where abortion is illegal (even right after conception), a government would be placing the rights of a group of cells above those of the pregnant woman. Regardless of the moral implications, it's the ultimate BIG government move, right?
Is sounds like you nailed abortion perfectly. You stated that "Murder is illegal because an individual (the murderer) is infringing on the right to life of the victim." Now watch what happens when I substitute "Abortion" in your definition. "Abortion is illegal because an individual (the murderer) is infringing on the right to life of the victim (fetus)." Therefore, Abortion = Murder.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 10:49 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
Dogs are groups of cells. Humans are groups of cells. Do dogs deserve the same rights as humans?
Why are you laughing? The answer is obviously no!(to non-liberals)
Why are you changing the subject? We were talking about humans not dogs.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 10:53 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
It's non-human
How do you come to the non-human conclusion? Genetically it is human. Science says that it is human.
It has human dna,
It's dna is unique. Not the same as the mother or father.
It is alive!
You can say it isn't human but the FACTS say otherwise.
Posted on 3/28/18 at 11:18 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
The reason murder is illegal is not because it is morally wrong, as the Constitution does not legislate morality. Murder is illegal because an individual (the murderer) is infringing on the right to life of the victim.
Okay, let's go with your premise. My wife and I go to the hospital to deliver. She's 40 weeks pregnant. When we get there we change our mind and want to abort.
Is that okay? Or I guess a better way to phrase it is in your opinion should that be okay?
Posted on 3/28/18 at 11:33 pm to omegaman66
quote:
How do you come to the non-human conclusion? Genetically it is human. Science says that it is human.
It has human dna,
It's dna is unique. Not the same as the mother or father.
It is alive!
You can say it isn't human but the FACTS say otherwise.
There's no scientific consensus on when a human becomes a human.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 12:17 am to PointsInCase
quote:
There's no scientific consensus on when a human becomes a human.
There’s no scientific consensus that killing humans is wrong either.
But more importantly it is undeniable that Roe doesn’t use science.
And if an unscientificly identified human is killed, murder is still the operative word.
Science cannot judge morality, but morality can judge science. Therefore morality is the operative determinant of legality. Remember, Nazi scientist advocated the murder of millions, and Communist scientists helped killed hundreds of millions more.
Unfortunately the human element always contaminates the mythical purity of science.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 2:28 am to PointsInCase
As an interested party in all things Jesus-related, I think the evidence shows God rather loves the death of the unborn. And really just death, generally. Up until about 200 years ago, about 1 in 3 pregnancies ended in the death of the fetus, the death of the mother, or the death of both.
If we were created spontaneously or created with intent via evolution, abortions seem to be a significant part of that programming language, may as well embrace the creator fully and partake in the experiment.
If we were created spontaneously or created with intent via evolution, abortions seem to be a significant part of that programming language, may as well embrace the creator fully and partake in the experiment.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 3:05 am to PointsInCase
quote:
There's no scientific consensus on when a human becomes a human.
hahaha, so I guess it is a living... something, but not human. So what species do you think we start out as?
Posted on 3/29/18 at 3:34 am to PointsInCase
quote:
It's non-human just like a dog is non-human. It's on about the same level. Willfully killing it is wrong, but its not murder. FWIW I don't think it should be illegal to kill a dog.
You really don't think it should be illegal to kill a blind person's service dog? That's cold.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News