Actually, this is about women's convenience at the expense of boy's and girl's lives.
Texans hating on science
- Thread starter theiacowtipper
- Start date
Actually, this is about women's convenience at the expense of boy's and girl's lives.
Exactly.
Not that things can't also be screwed up at the federal level. Ponder for a minute if Ted Cruz is appointing federal education officials. Would there be a creationist litmus test?
But the truth is that nearly everything we hear about education is a strong argument for better, higher, and more-encompassing federal minimums that states can improve upon but not degrade.
After climate change, education may be the next best reason why this nation can't afford a Republican president.
Amazing that people not only believe this but are unembarrassed to say it out loud.
Almost makes me question my devotion to democracy, since people this deluded get to vote.
I realized you are close-minded on this, but I'll give this a shot...
Humans are life support and procreation constructs for human DNA. The moment that an individual human's parents' DNA combine, a new DNA "blueprint" is created.
Every moment from that point on, developing in the womb, growing as a child, procreating as a younger adult, and hanging on to life in later years are all part of that individual's life. Why would any moment in that life be more important, or more worthy of being allowed to continue, than any other? If it is acceptable to end that life early on, why wouldn't it be acceptable to end that life when the individual is elderly? Or, if the individual is a 10 year old living on government assistance?
A lot of money could be saved.
The bottom line is that when you remove all the religious and political bullshit, when you remove disingenuous arguments about "women's health", you are left with individual humans starting life when their genetic code is created. A soul is not magically placed in us at any time, and we are not magically transformed as we exit our mothers' bodies. Therefore, if it is illegal to take a human's life at a particular stage, it should be illegal at all stages of their life.
Why should some individuals be killed for no other reason than they are a temporary inconvenience to another individual?
Were you able to comprehend any of this?
and Hitler's German and Stalin's Soviet Union are related to the US government, how? Hitler and Stalin ran the show back in their day........no so here...even for a conspiratist like you, I will not grant you that point.
Nice effort.
[1] OK.
[2] OK.
[3] You haven't established that ANY point in that life, or the life as a whole, is important or worthy of being allowed to continue. On what grounds do you make that claim? If we can agree on that, then we can look to see if they apply with equal force throughout development.
My criterion centers on sentience. For some - fetuses and brain dead coma patients, for example - sentience clearly does not exist. For some others sentience clearly exists. For some we have a high expectation that it could or will exist. The first group enjoys no expectation of being allowed to continue. The second group does. The third group is tricky.
I don't expect you to agree with my criteria but I outlined it to show how I intend to apply whatever criteria we might agree upon.
[4] Might be. Depends on what we decide in step 3.
[5] Seems like an out of sequence thought. What point were you trying to make? Are you for killing people if it's cost effective?
[6] OK.
[7] Agreed.
[8] That does not follow.
[9] That's probably the main reason why humans kill each other. Not saying it's a good reason. But it's what we do.
the feds dont run the show? Banks car companies health insurance marriages what kids eat at school guns?
Pertaining to:
#3: I merely am saying that all points in an individual's life are of similar worth. As far as whether ANY of those moments of life are worth allowing to continue, that is a separate issue in my opinion. For a quick answer, we humans general frown upon murder because unrestricted killing would usually not be a positive for the survival of the species. Others may claim murder was made illegal due to religious reasons, but those religious reasons originated with our DNA's survival programming. One may question why we humans should afford the human race special treatment, as compared to other species. My answer to that is that humans are the only instance we know of where the cosmos has become self-aware. That alone is reason enough for us to continue as a species, for now.
As far as sentience, it is true that it does not exist early in human life. However, it will most likely develop, if the individual is allowed to continue to mature. You put fetuses together with coma patients, so I'm confused when you say "The first group enjoys no expectation of being allowed to continue." I'm assuming you mean most coma patients and a very small percentage of fetuses.
#4: I think that is a bad direction for us to go. Once the rules allow culling of human for whatever seemingly beneficial reasons there may be in the future (i.e. population control, elimination of non-productive members of society, reducing the number of people with a higher likelihood of costly health issues, getting rid of pain-in-the-ass children), our society will have become a very bad place.
#5: This was just a tongue-in-cheek comment relating to killing certain groups of people off.
#8: What I mean is, if our society makes it illegal to murder humans, then it should be illegal to murder humans. What is the rationale for discouraging murder of a human at one stage of life, and not at another?
#9: Absolutely, that's the main reason. We have laws against it. Abortion allows it in the case of the unborn.
I'm ok with your thought process although I certainly don't agree with this simplistic claim. Temporary inconvenience?
Also, all of your reasons taken with the same objectivity point to the exact opposite conclusion just as fairly. If that is all it is, why even need to go through a "temporary inconvenience"?
Since when was it a fantastical claim that women use abortions like birth control to get rid of an inconvenient baby? When did this start becoming fantasy in the dem minds instead of fact?
You say these but without much support. Why do you think these things true? Why is every person's point in life at all times of similar worth than another's? I mean, that is fundamentally flawed, right? I an entirely different context, do we really believe that the POTUS and a secret service at the same point in time are of the same importance? Why is one tasked to "take a bullet" for the other?
Also, is a terminal patients life, at that point, really "worth" the same as a non-terminal, healthy individuals? If you had to choose, would you choose equally? Of course not. Utter panic in an ER, two trauma patients arrive at same time, only time to operate on one ... is there a system of determining "worth" of the surgery? Of course, it would defy logic not to.
Ok, now applying it to your claims above, why are all lives, at all points similar in the eyes of "killing"? Why shouldn't a person be able to end their own life with the assistance of another (like a medical professional?) If they don't want to live, why should they on the basis that all life is worth the same? Why shouldn't Will Smith have been allowed to die and donate all his organs?
And following all of that: Why not a thing that isn't a human/baby/whatever yet? Your argument, in your conclusion, is that life basically begins at conception, which is one of the most extreme of the positions. Why is the new-dna-thing the week after sexy-time worth the same as all other lives?
When it was statistically, logically, and fundamentally proved wrong? Even ignoring your hyerbole "like birth control", you have little to nothing to support mere "inconvenience".
Plus, they are all infected with alien DNA, haven't you been watching the new 48 Hours? I mean X Files?
In the case of most abortions, the child is killed because the parent or parents don't want either the inconvenience of the pregnancy and/or the cost, responsibility and other things they might consider negative related to raising children. In the case of the elderly, disabled, shiftless, and other groups that may be seen as targets for permanent removal from society; they are all a burden (inconvenience) to someone.
In most cases, these inconveniences are not permanent, so I used the adjective "temporary".
Link to statistics showing the vast majority ofabortions are done out of necessity or medical emergency please.
Funny, you shift the burden away from proving YOUR CLAIM, because you, uh, can't. Got to love HROT.
Its a fact the women go in there and get rid of inconvenient preggo. You.made the claim statistics and logic can prove the fact wrong. Ok, start statisticizin and logicizin.
Good conversation. Thanks.
I don't think we're going to agree on your early point that all points in a human life are (or should be treated as) of equivalent worth. But I do think all sentient life should have the status that you accord to human life.
I do however agree with your view that the potential to develop sentience is worth considering. But how far can we really take that? We can find a sperm for every human ovum in existence. Should we do so? Must we do so? Where do you draw the line and why?
I tend to look at it more in harm terms. Are you harming someone who is brain dead with no hope of recovery if you gently allow them to die? Are you harming someone if you gently terminate a fetus' growth well before it achieves sentience? I answer "no" to each of those questions. And, as you might imagine from how I phrased those questions, I think we should focus more on making sure that the exit really is gentle and pain free.
Last edited:
With all the other aspects of this issue that you could argue about, you're seriously questioning whether most abortions are due to the parent(s) wanting to avoid the issues involved in completing the pregnancy and raising the child?!?
You truly are a troll...
Fair enough.
In answer to your questions as to how far to take it: I think it begins at the moment the new, unique (as long as one isn't a twin or a clone) DNA "blueprint" is created. I don't know how long after conception that occurs.
I usually don't invest much time in long discussions here, because they frequently turn into insult contests. This conversation wasn't too bad.
Wait, the troll is the one asking you to support your claim? Weird times.
You called it inconvenience, that was what I took issue with. I don't think you've actually thought it through. It is a rather simplistic and pointless take.
I don't think so. Words matter. Inconvenience is purposefully loaded only to support one's side, it adds no benefit.
Does one take Interstate 80 simply because it is more convenient? Of course not, there are countless reasons to take it, something that someone can and should legitimately plan about.
Similarly, to boil this down to "inconvenience" is being, well, a troll who doesn't wish for discussion.
When you claim it as a "fact" you jump off the highdive into a pool full of shit.
We understand it differently. When I read an anti abortion person say inconvenient I understand he is trying to distinguish them from necessary life of the mother type circumstances. I would also note that this particular anti abortion poster didn't boil it all down to inconvenience as you say. He gave a few reasons describing his idea.
He is purposefully portraying it as some sort of decision between bouncing, smiling "boys and girls" vs. being "inconvenienced." Then compares, in essence, a person walking around being killed because they "temporarily inconvenienced" the other.
I guess you don't read these two above posts that way, which is fine, but it is a weak, pointless attempt to frame the argument in only one objectionably acceptable way. When has that ever sparked meaningful discussion?
I guess you don't read these two above posts that way, which is fine, but it is a weak, pointless attempt to frame the argument in only one objectionably acceptable way. When has that ever sparked meaningful discussion?
Seriously, it always boils down to the same thing I said that makes this a pointless argument anyways: It entirely depends if you "believe" it is a "child/baby/whatever". Obviously if you believe it equivalent to junior, a 4 year old riding his tricycle, it will be hard to ponder the other side.
But seriously, the "temporary inconvenience" argument is nonsense. If you saw a giant branch in your way, you don't ride your bike around it because riding through it might lead to the "temporary inconvenience" of breaking your bones, you ride your bike around it for, literally, dozens of reasons that aren't anchored in "convenience."
When a person chooses to stop sperm/egg/whatever from becoming a child they can be making that for all sorts of logical, well-thought out, reasonable reasons....as most people do.
But seriously, the "temporary inconvenience" argument is nonsense. If you saw a giant branch in your way, you don't ride your bike around it because riding through it might lead to the "temporary inconvenience" of breaking your bones, you ride your bike around it for, literally, dozens of reasons that aren't anchored in "convenience."
When a person chooses to stop sperm/egg/whatever from becoming a child they can be making that for all sorts of logical, well-thought out, reasonable reasons....as most people do.
Republicans are also a burden. If being a burden is the agree criterion, I say we start with them.
Needless to say, burdensomeness IS a perfectly good reason for deciding to take action in many arenas. But before we euthanize the elderly (or Republicans) we usually call for more than mere burdensomeness.
Or should that be "burdentudinosity"?
Needless to say, burdensomeness IS a perfectly good reason for deciding to take action in many arenas. But before we euthanize the elderly (or Republicans) we usually call for more than mere burdensomeness.
Or should that be "burdentudinosity"?
But...remember, drunken and unprotected sex is one of the rights of passage for humans!
Would you support a law that says people have to prove they have "good" reasons to have an abortion, and not just want it for convenience?
Before anyone objects that this is an unreasonable question, in many states you have to prove you have a good reason to carry a gun before you are allowed to exercise that unambiguous constitutional right. You can't just want to. Should we impose similar restrictions on abortion?
I'm not sure where you went with this, but it seems silly to me that the "protection" part only gets to apply to before (condoms, etc.) and not to what works immediately after. Not long ago even the "protected" part was wrong to the majority. Which is why I said that the conception arguers are now the extreme-position ones.
