Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 312 of 441 (837758)
08-08-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Percy
08-08-2018 3:12 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
But you did call it things like a "potential human life" and a "potential human being", and you called conception the definitive event, and then you called aborting it a harm when harms only apply to actual human beings. Are you sure you're not hiding your true feelings, maybe even from yourself?
Nope, I'm saying what I feel and what is known. Conception is a definitive point and is the start of potential human life. As such there is a harm involved in interfering with its development. That harm increases from the negligible to the most extreme.
Maybe inside you believe abortion is wrong but that it's impractical to ban it.
No again. I believe abortion is a wrong full stop. But it is a justifiable wrong up to a point. It's always a harm but the harm is on a continuum from almost none - the IUD - to murder. - killing a baby just before birth.
So you rationalize that though it's a harm (a wrong) it's one we feel guilty about, and as long as we feel guilty we can keep doing it.
Close. But not quite correct. It's a wrong but it's a necessary wrong that we have to live with. But we should always know that there's a harm here.
Yes, I know it's a possibility you have difficulty entertaining. There's a familiar feel to this, to be discussing with someone who simply declares things so while calling other people's inquiries insane.
And yet you still can't explain why a baby is not alive a moment before birth but alive a moment after. Why not?
Because after birth it is a living human being. Before birth I don't know.
Exactly what information are you lacking? You know that if the baby is removed from the woman it will be what you call 'alive'. You seem to know what alive is but not what 'dead' is. It's binary you know.
There's a significant problem with this.
Yeh, it's called the human condition. Like I've tried to say, it's not mathematics. Nevertheless, we have to deal with it.
Part of it lies outside the scope of this discussion, so as briefly as possible, the laws of a region don't necessarily reflect "collective, majority opinion." If you're watching the primaries here in the US then you understand that, and if you're not then I'll just say that only a small and usually more extreme subset of voters tend to vote in primaries, and it isn't an unfrequent occurrence for the candidates in the main election to represent the fringe elements of their respective parties. This is the choice Republican voters faced with Trump in 2016 - Trump didn't represent anything resembling the mainstream of the party, but the only alternative was a Democrat, so most voted for Trump.
I think you experience the same thing on your side of the pond when coalition governments become necessary and small parties have a disproportionate sway over governance.
Of course, it's an imperfect system. but it's what we've got until we improve it. By and large we get the will of the people and our institutions reflect our feelings. Hence Texas, hence guns. Hence Sweden publishes it's citizen's tax returns but your president doesn't. The American culture is what it is - generally right wing, strangely religious and conservative religious at that, fearing liberalism still dreaming of the frontier and individualism. Not all want that but just at the moment that's where you are and your wackier laws reflect it.
These issues with representative government mean that our laws are only inconsistently representative of the "collective, majority opinion." Some pretty horrible things have been done by supposedly representative governments that, by the laws they instituted, were perfectly legal.
Of course, but I've lost your plot.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 3:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:20 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 7:48 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 314 of 441 (837763)
08-08-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by ooh-child
08-08-2018 4:20 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
ooh-child writes:
Maybe you missed it the first time I corrected you, so I'll say it again - an IUD prevents fertilization, it does not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, it does not cause abortions.
The original IUDs prevented implantation. The modern ones now contain progestin which prevents fertisation or copper which has a similar effect. Neither do that perfectly but the IUD also has the original affect of irritating the womb lining and preventing implantation of a ferilised egg.
Do you wish to split hairs further or do you have a material point to make?
I find it somewhat amusing watching several men discuss women's reproductive decisions.
I'm glad to hear you're entertained.
Did the woman become pregnant on her own? Has no one else got a stake in the game?
Keep on.
No guarantees.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:20 PM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:46 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 316 of 441 (837765)
08-08-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by ooh-child
08-08-2018 4:46 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
ooh-child writes:
If you could show me medical literature describing this "irritating the womb lining and preventing implantation of a ferilised (sic) egg" scenario I'd be enlightened.
If you need more than this, I suggest you do the search.
How does an IUD prevent pregnancy?
Both types of IUDs work primarily by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg. The copper IUD releases copper into the uterus, which works as a spermicide. The others release a form of the hormone progestin into the uterus. The progestin thickens the cervical mucus so that sperm can't reach the egg. In some women, progestin may also prevent ovulation.
In the unlikely event that an egg does get fertilized and survives, both types of IUD cause inflammation in the uterus that makes it harder for the egg to implant there. Hormonal IUDs also cause thinning of the uterine lining, making implantation more difficult.
IUDs and birth control: What they are and how they work | BabyCenter

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:46 PM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 5:21 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 8:07 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 319 of 441 (837768)
08-08-2018 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by ooh-child
08-08-2018 5:21 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Ooh-child writes:
Thanks so much for the link, but I did ask for medical literature, not a for-profit website.
That's really tough on you, so sorry. But I'm betting you can use google too.
In any case, it really proves more my point: an IUD isn't an abortifacient since later in the page it is explained that an IUD can be successfully removed if the patient becomes pregnant while using an IUD.
ffs. So what? The IUD prevents both fertilisation and implantation. But if it fails it can be removed. It's not a material part of the argument what an IUD does or does not do. If a modern, perfect IUD now only prevents conception, great, that's one less harm in the world.
Next, I'll just put this out there:
Hey, you can use google!

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 5:21 PM ooh-child has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 333 of 441 (837828)
08-09-2018 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by jar
08-09-2018 2:28 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:
What we are saying is that it is irrelevant whether or not we think having an abortion is justified for the reasons given; what is relevant is whether the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff that are dealing with that particular instance think it is justified.
I'm really confused. First off you say that the matter is none of our business (confusing society generally with us as individuals) and that it's up to the mother to do what she sees fit. Neither you nor Percy will deliberate on the consequences of that which is the possibility of very late term abortion.
Now you're saying that the father and the medical staff also have a say. The medical staff also have to work within the law, they can't simply do as the mother requests. Are you saying that is wrong?
The law also gives the unborn baby rights too. Usually it's the right not to be electively killed after a date decided by a jurisdiction based on medical advice. In the UK it's 24 weeks. Am I right in thinking that you would give the unborn child no rights at all?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 2:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 5:48 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 08-09-2018 6:37 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 335 of 441 (837833)
08-09-2018 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by jar
08-09-2018 5:48 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:
I am not the person with either the authority or capability of conferring rights on others.
You're not being asked to confer rights, you're being asked for your opinion.
And you *are* the person telling us that: what is relevant is whether the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff that are dealing with that particular instance think it is justified.
You're not saying 'leave me out of this I haven't got an opinion', or that it's up to the mother, you're actually saying that the way it works now is the way you think it should be - because what you describe is actually the way it works now. (Though I don't think fathers are allowed a veto, in the West at least and medics work within laws that confer rights to the child too.)

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 5:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 6:50 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 338 of 441 (837854)
08-10-2018 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Percy
08-09-2018 6:37 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
So another way of asking your question is, "When should full rights of personhood be extended?" I think that at a minimum the right to life should be extended after birth. Prior to birth I do not know.
'Personhood' is a concept I find difficult to make much use of.
the quality or condition of being an individual person.
The distinction you are making is that the baby is alive outside of the woman but inside the woman it's not - or at least you don't know. This, being outside the woman is presumably your understanding of 'personhood' and 'living'.
I asked you whether the baby - because it is now a fully developed human baby - is 'alive' the moment before birth. You say you don't know. I say that is observably absurd. The only way the baby is different at the moment before birth is that it is still dependent on the mother for its food supply, waste management and oxygen. Artificially removed from the mother the baby would behave exactly like a newborn baby.
Is it the fact that the mother is providing the life support the thing that doesn't make it alive or a person? If so does the mother have the right to remove the life support of a premature baby? Does the baby only become a person at full term? If not, why not?
All modern western societies give the unborn rights, and I expect others do too. Why do you think they do that?
And btw, harm does not extend only to 'persons'; smashing a window is a harm, kicking a dog is a harm. Killing a baby just before birth without medical necessity is a serious crime that would likely result in imprisonment. Why would that be if it was not a harm?
I find it difficult to even imagine that the baby just before term is not alive and a person. But if I take your position of 'not knowing' shouldn't we at least use the precautionary principle and assume that it is? Would that help you out?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 08-09-2018 6:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 9:43 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 339 of 441 (837855)
08-10-2018 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by jar
08-09-2018 6:50 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar, I know you think all these equivocations and insults are very, very clever, but it actually comes over as petulance and childishness and isn't helping the debate.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 6:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by jar, posted 08-10-2018 6:44 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 343 of 441 (837884)
08-10-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Percy
08-10-2018 9:43 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
Actually I think it is more useful than "alive" because you were intermingling two different senses of the word alive. etc
You've just said all the same stuff all over again in a slightly different way and completely avoided answering any of the questions I asked you.
You seems overly concerned about a time when the foetus does not exist, while refusing to think about when it is a fully formed baby about to born. There is no equivalence here. All this stuff about grandfathers is irrelevant, we're only factually concerned about abortion and life, nothing else. There can not be life, in the ways that we're meaning - human life - unless and until the cells from two individuals fuse. All actions before that are irrelevant and reduce the argument to the absurd.
Can you address the points I raised?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 9:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 12:31 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 349 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 9:19 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 345 of 441 (837891)
08-10-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by NoNukes
08-10-2018 12:31 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
Until you do something about that impasse, you should not have any expectation that your comments are going to move the discussion forward. We disagree, and you know exactly why that is.
I'm trying to do that by getting someone to explain this to me. Ie forget conception, forget continuums of harm, just answer me this
Tangle writes:
The distinction you are making is that the baby is alive outside of the woman but inside the woman it's not - or at least you don't know. This, being outside the woman is presumably your understanding of 'personhood' and 'living'.
I asked you whether the baby - because it is now a fully developed human baby - is 'alive' the moment before birth. You say you don't know. I say that is observably absurd. The only way the baby is different at the moment before birth is that it is still dependent on the mother for its food supply, waste management and oxygen. Artificially removed from the mother the baby would behave exactly like a newborn baby.
Is it the fact that the mother is providing the life support the thing that doesn't make it alive or a person? If so does the mother have the right to remove the life support of a premature baby? Does the baby only become a person at full term? If not, why not?
All modern western societies give the unborn rights, and I expect others do too. Why do you think they do that?
And btw, harm does not extend only to 'persons'; smashing a window is a harm, kicking a dog is a harm. Killing a baby just before birth without medical necessity is a serious crime that would likely result in imprisonment. Why would that be if it was not a harm?
I find it difficult to even imagine that the baby just before term is not alive and a person. But if I take your position of 'not knowing' shouldn't we at least use the precautionary principle and assume that it is? Would that help you out?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 12:31 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 5:52 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 348 of 441 (837907)
08-10-2018 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by NoNukes
08-10-2018 5:52 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
I don't really intend to or need to. I personally am of the opinion, that there is, in fact, some point before birth during which we are talking about a human life.
Thank you, that's all I'm trying to point out.
For me, though that dotes not end the inquiry about the balance of harms, and folks can disagree about when an abortion is or is not appropriate.
It's a moral question that does not [ABE] have a final, unambiguous, objectively testable answer and people will have different answers. Nevertheless, we must decide.
I'm not a doctor, so when I am not involved, I believe that the situation is always one to be decide by a doctor and the patient at all times prior to birth.
We can't lay the burden of these life and death decisions wholly on individual doctors. Nor can we leave it to the arbitrary beliefs of individuals. Doctors need to work within parameters defined by our institutions. We all have a responsibilty here.
So I think I reach the same conclusion other folks reach without adopting their reasoning.
I think we two are in violent agreement, but I still have no clue about Jar and Percy.
Both say they don't know. Both say it's the woman's choice. But both absolutely and flatly refuse to discuss why and will not think about the edge implications of taking that view.
They both don't know but then both say that it's mother's choice. That's a certainty and a decision. But how can that conclusion be reached from a position of don't know?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 5:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by kjsimons, posted 08-10-2018 9:47 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 355 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2018 3:47 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 353 of 441 (837963)
08-11-2018 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by kjsimons
08-10-2018 9:47 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
kjsimons writes:
If people have different answers than there is obviously not an "final, unambiguous, objectively testable answer". Each case is different, no one size fits all.
There should have been a 'not' in that sentence. Of course there's no final, unambigious answer. That was the point I was trying to make, had I not made a complete horlicks of it.
But given that obvious point, we - society - still have to arrive at an unambiguous decision about it.
The thing that sticks in my craw is all the attention to the "unborn" and no attention to the already born and the pregnant mothers. If we are serious about reducing abortions than we need to get serious about supporting birth control initiatives, pregnant woman and their post born children!
Of course.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by kjsimons, posted 08-10-2018 9:47 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by jar, posted 08-11-2018 2:02 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 359 of 441 (837985)
08-11-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by jar
08-11-2018 2:02 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:
Why?
Because no decision is also a decision.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by jar, posted 08-11-2018 2:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Phat, posted 08-11-2018 4:57 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 361 by jar, posted 08-11-2018 5:07 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 362 of 441 (837988)
08-11-2018 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by NoNukes
08-11-2018 3:47 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
No, Tangle. 'We' don't have to decide.
Not interfering is also a decision.
The people involved have to decide for themselves with some possible input or advice from others.
Well that's a decision you've just made.
What I expressed about the life of the unborn is my opinion and not a fact even if you agree with me.
And it coincides with the way the law sees it. Just lucky I guess.
You are just as authoritarian as any fundamentalist.
Then given that we agree, that makes you the same I guess. Weird.
It does not matter if your opinions are not religious. Your opinions are not science-based either, so where does the moral authority for your own positions come from?
Well that's a bugger's muddle. Since when were moral decisions science based?
As I said, my conclusion about what "We" should do lines up with Percy and Jar and not you.
That will be proved true if Percy will agree with this statement of yours I personally am of the opinion, that there is, in fact, some point before birth during which we are talking about a human life
And if he does, then we are all in agreement.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2018 3:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 08-11-2018 6:17 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 367 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2018 10:34 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 363 of 441 (837989)
08-11-2018 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Phat
08-11-2018 4:48 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Phat writes:
perhaps Tangle believes that the moment when the "life" becomes sacred is a definite non-negotiable state and that society needs to protect the rights of the fetus.
The last bit is correct. There are more rights in play here than simply those of the women. The father, the baby and society as a whole. Putting the burden soley on the mother is both unjust and irresponsible. A public health policy that balances conflicting rights is an obvious necessity. Which is why we all have them.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Phat, posted 08-11-2018 4:48 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024