Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Yeah... you can prevent death and still be incredibly cruel and, indeed, outright malicious. The lesser evil is still evil. I'd be willing to trade cruel and malicious for cruel jackasses, though, sure.

One problem: Even if they're so hard against abortion because they think it's murder, they think it's murder for purely religious reasons, and purely religious reasoning is not really something that is supposed to be involved in the United States government/law/legal system.

[SalmonGod]

I'll just take it as a compliment

Yeah... you can prevent death and still be incredibly cruel and, indeed, outright malicious. The lesser evil is still evil. I'd be willing to trade cruel and malicious for cruel jackasses, though, sure.

One problem: Even if they're so hard against abortion because they think it's murder, they think it's murder for purely religious reasons,

I think the universality of this is often overstated. 

I personally see abortion as a moral grey area, where there is so much ambiguity about the nature of unborn life and so many potential circumstances involved in the whole pregancy/birthing/parenting process, that I can't possibly say whether it's right or wrong and for whom.  There is no religion behind my stance on the issue.

[kaijyuu]

Yeah I meant Truean.


Whoopsies!

[Frumple]

One problem: Even if they're so hard against abortion because they think it's murder, they think it's murder for purely religious reasons, and purely religious reasoning is not really something that is supposed to be involved in the United States government/law/legal system.

I'd go with purely metaphysical instead of purely religious, just to be careful there. Belief in a soul or a person becoming a person at conception doesn't necessarily require a religious investment. There's also the potential argument, which can be purely secular (ridiculous in its logical extremes and possibly hypocritical when applying to situations that would result in the child ending up a situation that would viciously curtail its potential, but still).

S'not saying that a great deal of the pre-life (ah, I remembered that. Not a typo, to be clear) people in the US aren't religiously motivated, but yeah.

[G-Flex]

I'd go with purely metaphysical instead of purely religious, just to be careful there. Belief in a soul or a person becoming a person at conception doesn't necessarily require a religious investment. There's also the potential argument, which can be purely secular (ridiculous in its logical extremes and possibly hypocritical when applying to situations that would result in the child ending up a situation that would viciously curtail its potential, but still).

There is no "potential argument" that actually makes sense.

Also, in the case of the actual anti-choice movement that actually exists in the US, yes, it's religious. Also, when you start talking about belief in a supernatural "soul" that exists in every person... yeah, I'd call that kind of belief "religious".

[SalmonGod]

I'd go with purely metaphysical instead of purely religious, just to be careful there. Belief in a soul or a person becoming a person at conception doesn't necessarily require a religious investment. There's also the potential argument, which can be purely secular (ridiculous in its logical extremes and possibly hypocritical when applying to situations that would result in the child ending up a situation that would viciously curtail its potential, but still).

There is no "potential argument" that actually makes sense.

Also, in the case of the actual anti-choice movement that actually exists in the US, yes, it's religious. Also, when you start talking about belief in a supernatural "soul" that exists in every person... yeah, I'd call that kind of belief "religious".

Can't a person just believe that the point at which an unborn child can experience meaningful suffering is ill-defined, and thus potentially inflicting that should be avoided if at all possible?

[G-Flex]

They can believe that, but I'd call it very irrational to say that it even might begin at conception; there is essentially no way a blastocyst can "experience meaningful suffering" any more than a sample of organ tissue can.

Of course, this is all pretty irrelevant. Virtually all pro-life movement in the US is religiously-motivated, and that's what I'm talking about.

[kaijyuu]

The lesser evil is still evil.

Well we really only have two options here since the baby already exists (again, going logically along with the premise of "the fetus is human and has human rights").

We can abort (which would be murder), or we can face the negative consequences (9 months of pregnancy, putting the kid up for adoption or raising it, etc).


I dunno about you, but I'd go with the latter.



'Course it's completely different with the opposite premise (fetus is not human). Then there's no murder, no obligation, none of that.

Yeah... you can prevent death and still be incredibly cruel and, indeed, outright malicious. The lesser evil is still evil. I'd be willing to trade cruel and malicious for cruel jackasses, though, sure.

One problem: Even if they're so hard against abortion because they think it's murder, they think it's murder for purely religious reasons, and purely religious reasoning is not really something that is supposed to be involved in the United States government/law/legal system.

Err... what?

One thing I've always noticed and been bemused by is the fact religious folk have a better case for the unborn child not having rights, since they can claim the soul isn't in there yet. Non religious arguments don't have an easy catch-all like that, since they have to debate "what makes people human" and all that junk to determine if the child is or isn't.


I'm sorry, but claiming all arguments for unborn children having rights to be based in religion is utter bullshit.

[G-Flex]

I'm sorry, but claiming all arguments for unborn children having rights to be based in religion is utter bullshit.

• Calling every single stage of prenatal development an "unborn child" is loaded language.
• The politically-relevant arguments are religiously-based, at least in the United States.

[Max White]

We can abort (which would be murder), or we can face the negative consequences (9 months of pregnancy, putting the kid up for adoption or raising it, etc).


I dunno about you, but I'd go with the latter.

I agree that the latter seems much better as you framed it. As such, I agree, if I impregnated a girl and the fetus was showing signs of a serious disability, I would tell her in my opinion I would like to keep it, although as I'm not the one carrying the baby the final say isn't exactly up to me... Regardless, I'm not sure that even though you and I would take that choice, everybody would take that same choice, thus isn't it better to be pro-choice and not make these choices for other people?

[SalmonGod]

They can believe that, but I'd call it very irrational to say that it even might begin at conception; there is essentially no way a blastocyst can "experience meaningful suffering" any more than a sample of organ tissue can.

Of course, this is all pretty irrelevant. Virtually all pro-life movement in the US is religiously-motivated, and that's what I'm talking about.

I agree.  The majority of it is, and it is somewhat ridiculous to say that a blastocyst can experience meaningful suffering.  I'm also not anti-abortion.

I just get tired of the pro-choice side of the movement behaving like there is no grey area to the subject at all, and that anybody who has reservations is completely irrational or anti-scientific.  At least that's the vibe I very often get.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While I am pro-choice, I do not see abortion as morally grey, I see it as undeniably evil. It's just that not allowing it causes significantly more suffering and evil than allowing it does.

[Frumple]

There is no "potential argument" that actually makes sense.

Also, in the case of the actual anti-choice movement that actually exists in the US, yes, it's religious. Also, when you start talking about belief in a supernatural "soul" that exists in every person... yeah, I'd call that kind of belief "religious".

Go with spiritual Religion implies organization, and maybe dogma, etc. Belief in the soul (which tends to be the core of the major religious argument)  doesn't really require any of that.

And potential argument as argument from potential -- i.e. the waste of the potential of the life that could be. I'd agree with you the logical consequences of it are g'damn ridiculous, but it makes sense. It's a workable moral heuristic with a few terrifying consequences, like most moral heuristics

It's not in line with the movement you mention, though, of course not. There's not much a secular presence within the US pre-life groups.

Can't a person just believe that the point at which an unborn child can experience meaningful suffering is ill-defined, and thus potentially inflicting that should be avoided if at all possible?

Sure. Argument from suffering, (not the offical(ish) name for it, which I've forgotten) s'a basic moral argument for a lot of the better (conceptually) founded animal-right arguments. Which makes it pretty relevant, really.

... though that may only imply that ensuring the abortion is painless for the child is a major issue, which would probably be pretty easy to do.

[Truean]

Being alive doesn't give you rights and certainly not all rights you can imagine.

If the fetus has the right to life at the expense of the mother, then the homeless man has the right to life at the expense of society. Both will die without support. If a fetus is alive, then certainly the homeless are. Moreover, the government can neither provide nor guarantee life.

It's funny how some people think life and the right to claim it at someone else's expense and over their objection begin at conception, but apparently end at birth....

I know... I'll get letters....

________________________________________________________________

In other news YAAY! http://news.yahoo.com/gay-spouse-given-health-benefits-u-court-case-000201268.html
http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/golinski-v-us-office-personnel-management

Come on, at least with us GLBT you'll never have to worry about abortions, right? And, hey we'd love to adopt those kids that others unfortunately don't.

And.... here come the letters....
 

[Max White]

Yea, I don't exactly see how the same person could be pro life and pro death penalty...