|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: We could probably agree that conception is easy to identify, but I could't agree that it is definitive about the origin of new life.[ My case is that it is the *only* stage in the process that we can recognise that a new life will begin if all goes to plan. Neither a sperm nor an egg can mak a baby on their own.
I don't know what you mean by potential new life, since for you a zygote is potential new life while a sperm or egg is not. You're drawing distinctions without justification. The distinction is made above.
Plenty of laws have nothing to do with harms.
Such as?
No no, you misunderstand. I was commenting on where you expressed the opinion that we manage to work out an "objective way of calculating the punishment for *any* harm." Clearly we don't manage to work it out, and Texas is a prime example with their many executions, disproportionately black. How can we trust governments that believe life worth so little to be involved in decisions about when life begins or the rights of the woman? My case is that it is impossible to calculate objectively the things we are discussing. You are looking for objectivity where none can exist. Nevertheless we, as a society form conclusions about them that turn into public policy whether on abortion or capital punishment. Those conclusions are based on the feelings of people overall. You can't blame the government for enacting the will of the people - blame the people.
Well, that was random and irrelevant. It's very, very relevant and it's a point you are consistently missing. Public policy on these matters is reality. That it is based on feelings rather than science is something you have to accept or you'll continue to misunderstand. These are matters that are based on people's feeling and that IS a reality.
Why we? We're both male. Women should have the right to make decisions about their bodies, not men or governments. Ok, so I'll ask you again. Should a woman be able to abort her foetus one hour before its birth?
I don't think "the best answers our institutions are capable of at the time" is a particularly strong endorsement. No matter how bad any answer from any point in history you could merely justify it as the best they were capable of at the time. But the evidence strongly suggests that such institutions are capable of coming up with horrible answers any time. US internment of Japanese Americans during WWII is an example. Justifying torture during the Iraq war is another example (the current head of the CIA ran a unit in Thailand that used torture). How would you improve on all this?
That would be nice, but history doesn't support this position. More likely the general worldwide trend toward greater respect for life and freedom is a reflection of increasing wealth and prosperity. If/when wealth starts decreasing this trend will reverse. You are totally wrong on this. Just looking at violence in society.Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence | TED Talk I don't know what you're reading, but it isn't anything I said.
I'm reading your posts.
I'm commenting that we're exhibiting the same lack of empathy and compassion that we exhibited 80 years ago. Trump's election and Brexit's passage was assisted by anti-immigrant sentiment. We've learned nothing. I do not share your optimism. Now where did all that come from? But at least you're now accepting that policy is based on feelings not objectivity. In this case the feelings are, *in our view* very bad ones. But it seems that the majority don't share our values. This too will pass. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But on it's own the sperm can not become a baby. It only has a lottery ticket. Only a fertilised egg can become a baby. Conception is the only point in the process where you can say that a baby will be born if all goes perfectly. Actually, I believe your claims is that it is the earliest point and not the only point. Surely we could point to other indicators that are later than conception. Let's not gloss over what you are actually claiming. The problem is that preventing potential birth is not harm, and the harm is not unbalanced by other harms, particularly when we are discussing points as early as conception.
And that is exactly my case. I say that the harm involved in preventing the fertised egg developing is on a continuum, from almost negligeable (use of IUD) to murder (killing a foetus an hour before birth). This analysis is a bit better but surely the scale is not linear. One might say that the harm is negligible up to the point of viability. And negligible harms, or even measurable ones may be balanced by things other than a woman's life. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Tangle writes: Catholics take the view that any unnatural interventions between egg and sperm is harm. But they are inconsistent in recognising withdrawal and sex outside fertile periods as allowabl birth control. This is muddled thinking. If the intention is to prevent birth then by their definition, those are harms, though they plainly are not. Catholic thinking *is* muddled, but it does help pinpoint a key flaw in your stance. You postulate a continuum from conception to baby and beyond but deny that the continuum also extends in the other direction before conception. Sheer consistency demands that it extend infinitely in both directions. You make this argument yourself at least a little by extending the continuum back just a little before conception to the IUD:
And that is exactly my case. I say that the harm involved in preventing the fertised egg developing is on a continuum, from almost negligible (use of IUD) to murder (killing a foetus an hour before birth). But your preferred criteria of harms as a determination of when the harm is okay is still hopeless. There's no way to determine how much harm is done, let alone determine how much harm is too much. There are no objective criteria.There is nothing that is, using another of your preferred terms , definitive. It is still all based on feelings, mostly on images that tend to create the strongest feelings. Hint: If you're using images of human fetuses to make your judgments you're not likely being objective. Here's one that will wrench your heart:
It's fake, of course, but does that matter when the goal is to manipulate feelings, and especially when it works so well?
My original point was that abortion at any stage is a harm that we should recognise and be honest with ourselves about. We haven't forgotten your original point, but to use your own qualifier, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that preventing sperm from reaching egg is a harm that we should recognize. When mother and father want a baby then sperm reaching egg is a wondrous thing, but when they don't, when a baby is the furthest thing from their minds, then sperm reaching egg is a crisis. Your theory of balancing harms is just a morass of subjective feelings that provide no real objective answers. I say this not because I seek objective answers but because I know they don't exist. Such questions are unanswerable, even though governments try to answer them anyway. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Tangle writes: Percy writes:
My case is that it is the *only* stage in the process that we can recognise that a new life will begin if all goes to plan. Neither a sperm nor an egg can make a baby on their own. We could probably agree that conception is easy to identify, but I could't agree that it is definitive about the origin of new life. You can't pretend NoNukes rebuttals of this argument didn't happen just because I'm not NoNukes.
I don't know what you mean by potential new life, since for you a zygote is potential new life while a sperm or egg is not. You're drawing distinctions without justification. The distinction is made above. Conception is only one of many distinctions. You're ignoring creation of the gamete producers (parents), gamete production, gamete delivery, implantation, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus. How much harm is associated with any of these stages? Give your reasons.
Plenty of laws have nothing to do with harms.
Such as? I already looked up the harm principle, maybe you should do the same. Maybe it's been a while for you. It's a simple principle that runs somewhat along the lines of, "Your right to extend your arm ends at my nose." You're pretending the principle applies everywhere, probably inventing trivial and hypothetical harms in your mind.
No no, you misunderstand. I was commenting on where you expressed the opinion that we manage to work out an "objective way of calculating the punishment for *any* harm." Clearly we don't manage to work it out, and Texas is a prime example with their many executions, disproportionately black. How can we trust governments that believe life worth so little to be involved in decisions about when life begins or the rights of the woman? My case is that it is impossible to calculate objectively the things we are discussing. You are looking for objectivity where none can exist. Again, you've got it completely backwards. I've stated that the questions are unanswerable and so could not possibly be looking for objectivity. I don't think it exists on this issue. I think you're grossly in error in calling your reactions to your feelings definitive.
Nevertheless we, as a society form conclusions about them that turn into public policy whether on abortion or capital punishment. Those conclusions are based on the feelings of people overall. You can't blame the government for enacting the will of the people - blame the people. I do.
Well, that was random and irrelevant. It's very, very relevant and it's a point you are consistently missing. Public policy on these matters is reality. That it is based on feelings rather than science is something you have to accept or you'll continue to misunderstand. These are matters that are based on people's feeling and that IS a reality. I agree with all this except for the part where you expressed a belief that I reject or misunderstand this.
Why we? We're both male. Women should have the right to make decisions about their bodies, not men or governments. Ok, so I'll ask you again. Should a woman be able to abort her foetus one hour before its birth? Okay, so I'll repeat what I said before, which is a question since you haven't provided enough information: When does life begin? You can't pretend that the unanswerable questions don't exist.
I don't think "the best answers our institutions are capable of at the time" is a particularly strong endorsement. No matter how bad any answer from any point in history you could merely justify it as the best they were capable of at the time. But the evidence strongly suggests that such institutions are capable of coming up with horrible answers any time. US internment of Japanese Americans during WWII is an example. Justifying torture during the Iraq war is another example (the current head of the CIA ran a unit in Thailand that used torture). How would you improve on all this? It's an Of Human Bondage kind of thing - people are people. They aren't going to change.
That would be nice, but history doesn't support this position. More likely the general worldwide trend toward greater respect for life and freedom is a reflection of increasing wealth and prosperity. If/when wealth starts decreasing this trend will reverse. You are totally wrong on this. Just looking at violence in society.https://www.ted.com/...steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence It's a 20 minute video so I hope you'll forgive me for just reading the one sentence summary. That there's a long term trend of declining violence is well known, even through the bloody twentieth century and the wars in the Middle East. What I said agrees with Pinker, so I don't know why you bothered posting his video, though by the way it's embeddable:
What I added is that the declining violence (I actually called it increasing respect for life and freedom) is a reflection of increasing wealth, and that when wealth goes south so will declining violence.
I don't know what you're reading, but it isn't anything I said.
I'm reading your posts. Try reading for comprehension so that when someone presents evidence of a lack of moral progress that your response is in some way relevant.
I'm commenting that we're exhibiting the same lack of empathy and compassion that we exhibited 80 years ago. Trump's election and Brexit's passage was assisted by anti-immigrant sentiment. We've learned nothing. I do not share your optimism. Now where did all that come from? You know, there are links that make it easy to trace the discussion back. I was remaking the same point, this time with different examples, that you had completely missed previously. I was originally responding to your comment that "Improvements in our societies are developmental. Enslaving people is another obvious harm that we eventually grew up enough to overturn" from your Message 197. Slavery's still with us, by the way, e.g., Which countries have the highest rates of modern slavery and most victims?:
quote: So please pardon my pessimism.
But at least you're now accepting that policy is based on feelings not objectivity. That's what I've been telling you. You're going by your feelings, and your use of terms like "definitive" are not appropriate to the high degree of subjectivity involved.
In this case the feelings are, *in our view* very bad ones. But it seems that the majority don't share our values. This too will pass. I'm sure many Jews also said, "This too will pass," after Kristallnacht on the eve of WWII. Again, I do not share your optimism. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You're using it as if there was a clear difference between "harm" and "no harm" when there clearly isn't.
So help me out, what's wrong with the way I'm using the word? Tangle writes:
But there's no consensus in our laws. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
There is, it's in our laws. Tangle writes:
The date being semi-arbitrary is the whole point. It's what makes the whole issue fuzzy. Only up to a semi-arbitrary date.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: Actually, I believe your claims is that it is the earliest point and not the only point. Yup.
The problem is that preventing potential birth is not harm, That's your claim. My claim is that preventing conception is not harm, but preventing a foetus developing from a fertilised egg is. I also claim that there is a continuum of the degree of harm as the foetus develops from negligeable to outright murder.
This analysis is a bit better How kind of you to say so!
but surely the scale is not linear. One might say that the harm is negligible up to the point of viability. One might, but one would have no real reason for doing so other than to invoke a rationalisation. Additionally, as medical science progresses, viability will slip backwards towards the point of conception.
And negligible harms, or even measurable ones may be balanced by things other than a woman's life. I've said this many times too. My position is not that abortion should not be available but that we should be more honest about the fact that this is not a neutral thing like taking a asprin to cure a headache.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: Sheer consistency demands that it extend infinitely in both directions. Pragmatism and common sense demands that we do no such thing otherwise we're heading right back to the big bang.
You make this argument yourself at least a little by extending the continuum back just a little before conception to the IUD: No. The IUD works by preventing the fertised egg implanting. It's a very, very early abortion.
But your preferred criteria of harms as a determination of when the harm is okay is still hopeless. There's no way to determine how much harm is done, let alone determine how much harm is too much. There are no objective criteria. Yes, yes, I know this. I've said this. I keep saying to you that there is no objective criteria but we still must decide. Is there another way I can say this that will get through?
There is nothing that is, using another of your preferred terms , definitive. The point of conception is definitive.
It is still all based on feelings, mostly on images that tend to create the strongest feelings. Aaaaarghh. I know!!! I keep telling you this. Feelings are what we use to make moral decisions.
We haven't forgotten your original point, but to use your own qualifier, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that preventing sperm from reaching egg is a harm that we should recognize. I can't recognise that as a harm as nothing has been harmed. Neither sperm nor eggs are capable of developing into anything if they don't meet. This is not a problem. A man produces 525 billion sperm cells during his lifetime and less than a handful with find an egg.
Your theory of balancing harms is just a morass of subjective feelings that provide no real objective answers. There you go again. Wanting objective answers were no objective answers are possible.
I say this not because I seek objective answers but because I know they don't exist. Such questions are unanswerable, even though governments try to answer them anyway. Quit blaming governments. They only do the will of the people. And, I note, for the third time you have refused to answer my question about whether a woman should be allowed to abort her foetus one day before its due date.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 242 Joined: |
You keep claiming that IUDs perform abortions, but they in fact do not.
Intrauterine Devices (IUDs): Access for Women in the U.S. — KFF
IUDs work by affecting the ovum and sperm to prevent fertilization and are more than 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. They do not protect against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). IUDs do not affect an established pregnancy and do not act as an abortifacient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: You can't pretend NoNukes rebuttals of this argument didn't happen just because I'm not NoNukes. And I have rebutted his rebuttal.
Conception is only one of many distinctions. You're ignoring creation of the gamete producers (parents), gamete production, gamete delivery, implantation, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus. How much harm is associated with any of these stages? Give your reasons. Conception is the first stage at which a baby will be born if no further interventions are made - either by man or nature. There is no earlier point that you can know this.
I already looked up the harm principle, etc So you'll be able to answer the question I asked of you which was to give a few example of laws that don't either seek to remedy or prevent harm.
Okay, so I'll repeat what I said before, which is a question since you haven't provided enough information: When does life begin? That is not an answer and you know it. This is not a theoretical excercise, we - society - have to decide. It's your vote, is it yes or no?
can't pretend that the unanswerable questions don't exist. If you can but notice, that's precisely what I'm not doing. And have not been doing it for dozens of posts. Nevertheless, real life and death decisions have to be made on the knowledge we have. What is your vote?
It's an Of Human Bondage kind of thing - people are people. They aren't going to change. Well it's the human condition and we do make progress.
It's a 20 minute video so I hope you'll forgive me for just reading the one sentence summary. It's also a 2 thick book and I commend it to you.
That there's a long term trend of declining violence is well known, even through the bloody twentieth century and the wars in the Middle East. What I said agrees with Pinker, so I don't know why you bothered posting his video, though by the way it's embeddable You said you were pessimistic about our future and that we have learned nothing. Pinker's *objective* analysis says otherwise as you would know had you either read the book or watched the video.
Try reading for comprehension so that when someone presents evidence of a lack of moral progress that your response is in some way relevant. Do try not to be an arse, we might make more progress.
Slavery's still with us, by the way, e.g., Which countries have the highest rates of modern slavery and most victims?: Ffs. Yes I know. Please try to both keeping to the point and assuming a little intelligence on my side. Slavery and many other horrors are still with us but they are no longer universal. People are still human, it's only when we develop our institutions that we begin to regulate their behaviours. Many parts of the world lag behind the West but change is happening.
That's what I've been telling you. You're going by your feelings, and your use of terms like "definitive" are not appropriate to the high degree of subjectivity involved. The point of conception is definitive. Scientifically and objectively difinitive. Ok? Whether we say abortion is ok is not is not difinitive, it is based on our feelings. ok?
I'm sure many Jews also said, "This too will pass," after Kristallnacht on the eve of WWII. And it did pass. And they got a homeland. And good triumphed over evil. But it was a horror and it likely will happen again. But gradually things are getting better.
Again, I do not share your optimism. Well that's just your subjective feelings talking...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Percy writes:
Pragmatism and common sense demands that we do no such thing otherwise we're heading right back to the big bang. Sheer consistency demands that it extend infinitely in both directions. Pragmatism, but of course. No need for an argumentum ad absurdum. I'm was just making clear your inconsistency. So what tells you that the continuum must begin at conception and not before? Your common sense? Your feelings?
You make this argument yourself at least a little by extending the continuum back just a little before conception to the IUD: No. The IUD works by preventing the fertised egg implanting. It's a very, very early abortion. Doh! Sorry, brain cramp.
But your preferred criteria of harms as a determination of when the harm is okay is still hopeless. There's no way to determine how much harm is done, let alone determine how much harm is too much. There are no objective criteria. Yes, yes, I know this. I've said this. I keep saying to you that there is no objective criteria but we still must decide. Is there another way I can say this that will get through? Could I suggest that it might help get through to me if responses addressed what I actually said? So what do you mean "we"? Unless you're referring to the woman then someone else is making decisions for her based on *their* feelings rather than upon objective criteria. I don't believe people have the right to impose their feelings on others. Now if people have objective evidence and arguments for what they want to impose on someone else (for example, vaccinations) then that's another matter.
There is nothing that is, using another of your preferred terms , definitive. The point of conception is definitive. Every time you say "definitive" it implies you have some kind of objective criteria. You don't. All you have is your feelings.
It is still all based on feelings, mostly on images that tend to create the strongest feelings. Aaaaarghh. I know!!! I keep telling you this. Feelings are what we use to make moral decisions. If your judgments are based upon your feelings then you should stop using the word "definitive." Your repeated use of that word is the source of my references to objectivity that you keep complaining about. You're the root cause of the very thing you're complaining about.
We haven't forgotten your original point, but to use your own qualifier, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that preventing sperm from reaching egg is a harm that we should recognize. I can't recognise that as a harm as nothing has been harmed. Neither sperm nor eggs are capable of developing into anything if they don't meet. This is not a problem. A man produces 525 billion sperm cells during his lifetime and less than a handful with find an egg. I was mimicking your "if you're honest with yourself" argument. If you're honest with yourself you'll acknowledge the vacuity of that way of arguing.
Your theory of balancing harms is just a morass of subjective feelings that provide no real objective answers. There you go again. Wanting objective answers were no objective answers are possible. As explained several times already, I don't think objective answers are possible. I'm just pointing out to you that feelings are no substitute for objective criteria, and the fact that "decisions must be made" doesn't give answers arrived at through feelings any basis in fact.
I say this not because I seek objective answers but because I know they don't exist. Such questions are unanswerable, even though governments try to answer them anyway. Quit blaming governments. They only do the will of the people. Governments do the will of some people and not others. How many people wanted a law with these requirements in Texas:
Abortion is available in only 4% of Texas counties. I bet that was the will of the people, too.
And, I note, for the third time you have refused to answer my question about whether a woman should be allowed to abort her foetus one day before its due date. But I have insufficient information. I keep asking for that information, but you keep refusing to provide it and instead keep repeating your question while accusing me of avoiding yours. I'm not avoiding your question. I'm engaging in dialog. Give me the necessary information: When does life begin? I will, for the sake of discussion, assume your answer is objectively true and use it to answer the question. But that isn't really what you wanted, is it. Your question was actually a rhetorical ploy to force *me* to decide when life begins. I've already told you I don't know, that I have mostly questions and few answers. That hasn't changed. What also hasn't changed is the disparity between your degree of certainty and your paucity of facts, especially given your admission that all you have is feelings. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo, grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: But I have insufficient information. I keep asking for that information, but you keep refusing to provide it and instead keep repeating your question while accusing me of avoiding yours. I'm not avoiding your question. I'm engaging in dialog. Give me the necessary information: When does life begin? I will, for the sake of discussion, assume your answer is objectively true and use it to answer the question. But that isn't really what you wanted, is it. Your question was actually a rhetorical ploy to force *me* to decide when life begins. I've already told you I don't know, that I have mostly questions and few answers. That hasn't changed. What also hasn't changed is the disparity between your degree of certainty and your paucity of facts, especially given your admission that all you have is feelings. Ok I've now repeated myself too many times to hope that more repetition will get through to you. Let's cut to the chase. My position, like yours, is that there is no objective point when life can be declared as life. The conception point is a red herring - it's the definitive start of the development of a human being but that doesn't help us with the decision we have to make. You say that it's the woman's choice, that the government has no role to play. I ask you whether the woman can terminate her pregnancy a day before term. You refuse to answer because you lack information. But life is not like that. We have to have an answer. What is it? There is no ‘don't know’ here, a policy is required. The options are no abortion, woman's choice or some regulated methodology. Edge cases matter because they help us get to the nub of the problem. For what it's worth, because it *is* an obvious harm to abort a foetus - particularly late stage foetuses - I believe it needs to be regulated and I do not believe that a woman has an absolute right to do what she likes with the foetus within her. As to the point at which a termination should not be allowed (without medical necessity) I’ll bow to scientific advice as to when that date should be.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: You say that it's the woman's choice, that the government has no role to play. I ask you whether the woman can terminate her pregnancy a day before term. You refuse to answer because you lack information. But life is not like that. We have to have an answer. What is it? There is no ‘don't know’ here, a policy is required. The options are no abortion, woman's choice or some regulated methodology Why do we need an answer? Why can't the answer be different for every instance? Edited by jar, : left out be
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Jar writes: Why do we need an answer? Why can't the answer be different for every instance? I'll ask you the same question. Is it ok for a woman to terminate the foetus she is carrying 1 day, before term?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And I will give you the same answer; I have absolutely no way to know or tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Jar writes: And I will give you the same answer; I have absolutely no way to know or tell. Really? Ok, how about 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after?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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024