I didn't argue that abortion was "okay." That's a shallow and casual word for something that's not morally blameless and that generally is emotionally miserable. I do think abortion should be legal. The reason it was legalized in the first place was the high incidence of illegal abortions even at great medical risk. Sinful it may well be, but nobody in the legislative realm is in a position to cast the first stone.
Your argument about infanticide isn't comparable. Your hypothetical overtired mother is acting on impulse. Nobody has an abortion on impulse.
I assume this is responding to me. You should try and find the reply button lol. You should also try and do better at applying the barest minimum of logical consistency and language comprehension.
>I didn't argue that abortion was "okay." That's a shallow and casual word for something that's not morally blameless and that generally is emotionally miserable. I do think abortion should be legal.<
>I didn't argue that abortion was okay
>I do think abortion should be legal
If it's not okay, why wouldn't it be? Because it's the murder of a child? Or is it somehow something else? If we acknowledge that it is not okay because it is the murder of a child, how in the world can it be legal? And if it must for some unfathomable reason be legal anyways, why is only this particular form of child murder allowed, and not infanticide?
Try to think about what you are saying from a rational viewpoint here.
>The reason it was legalized in the first place was the high incidence of illegal abortions even at great medical risk. Sinful it may well be, but nobody in the legislative realm is in a position to cast the first stone.<
No, it was legalized to satisfy the feminist principle that women must be made equal to men in all possible aspects. Part of this means removing the burden of pregnancy. That is why it was legalized. Everything else is a cope. This is made apparent by, among other things, feminist worship of "RBG" as a pseudo-saint. "It's going to happen anyways even if you make it illegal" is such an insane excuse it's not even funny. Again: Imagine trying to justify any other crime this way. "Well, people are going to commit murders anyways, so no point in making it illegal!" Such a ridiculous thing to say.
You're making up your own definition of murder. Murder is a specific term in law. Until the US or a state defines abortion as murder, it isn't murder. It's an abortion. Since you're being pedantic about Catherine's comment.
People can have their own moral opinion and still support a law that allows others, with different morals, to make different choices.
The question is when should a ferus have rights? I like the states deciding for themselves until a federal law is.passed.
>You're making up your own definition of murder. Murder is a specific term in law. Until the US or a state defines abortion as murder, it isn't murder. It's an abortion. Since you're being pedantic about Catherine's comment.<
Yes, the law does not currently convey the moral reality that abortion is more or less synonymous with murder. I am arguing that the law is wrong and should be changed, and indeed many states are moving in that direction now that Roe v Wade is finally out of the way. This is quite similar to the way in which, before the Civil War, abolitionists argued that laws regarding the personhood of black people should be changed, and though it took much strife to get there, everyone eventually had to admit that they were right.
I know that all of this is super duper extremely complex and difficult to understand, so take the time to read it over a few or ten times if you need to.
>People can have their own moral opinion and still support a law that allows others, with different morals, to make different choices.<
Can we "support a law that allows other, with different morals, to make different choices" when it comes to who counts as a human being and thus which acts count (or do not count) as murder?
We can have different laws reflecting different opinions on many issues, but some things cannot be compromised on. It is fine for one state to have a lower tax rate and one state to have a higher tax rate. It is not fine for one state to define a certain class of people as not human beings and to legally endorse their murder.
>The question is when should a ferus have rights? I like the states deciding for themselves until a federal law is.passed.<
"The question is when should a negro have rights? I like the states deciding the issue of slavery for themselves until a federal law is passed."
No. Human beings have some basic rights that are not, or rather should not, be up for a majority vote. This includes the right to not be enslaved. It also includes the right to life, arguably the most basic right of all.
>Human beings have some basic rights that are not, or rather should not, be up for a majority vote.<
Isn't that how democracy should work? Otherwise, what is your authority for deciding? I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job, especially considering their location in time and space.
My personal opinion. I don't think it is evident that a 6 week human fetus, who is indistinguishable from a pig or rat fetus, should have the same rights as a viable human fetus and or an adult human being.
>Isn't that how democracy should work? Otherwise, what is your authority for deciding? I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job, especially considering their location in time and space.<
Are you implying that it would be okay for 51% of the population to vote to murder or enslave the other 49%? Or even 99% to vote to kill the 1%? On the basis that that would technically be democratic?
>My personal opinion. I don't think it is evident that a 6 week human fetus, who is indistinguishable from a pig or rat fetus<
A 6 week human fetus is easily distinguished from a pig or rat fetus. The first hint is that they are growing inside of a human female. I feel confident that a woman has never given birth to a rat or a pig. If there were a chance of that happening, this may be more of a relevant comparison.
>should have the same rights as a viable human fetus<
How do you distinguish "6 week fetus" from "viable fetus?"
>Are you implying that it would be okay for 51% of the population to vote to murder or enslave the other 49%? Or even 99% to vote to kill the 1%? On the basis that that would technically be democratic?<
Our country isn't set up that way. We have elected officials who are supposed to represent their people.
I'm suggesting that the people decide which law should be kept and changed by voting. And if another process was preferred, the people would have to elected officials to implement that process.
So if someone wants to make all abortions illegal, they need to get congress to pass that law. Otherwise, states decide and if people have a problem, they send it to the courts. I like the checks and balances. I also have a growing admiration for how difficult the constitution and government is to permanently change.
<How do you distinguish "6 week fetus" from "viable fetus?">
Literally a 6 week fetus cannot survive outside the mother. A viable fetus is developed enough to survive outside the mother. I would distinguish with medical technology.
We as a society have to decide. I mean these next questions rhetorically. How should we value a women's egg? Those eggs could easily become a viable human. Should we give those potential lives rights?
I didn't argue that abortion was "okay." That's a shallow and casual word for something that's not morally blameless and that generally is emotionally miserable. I do think abortion should be legal. The reason it was legalized in the first place was the high incidence of illegal abortions even at great medical risk. Sinful it may well be, but nobody in the legislative realm is in a position to cast the first stone.
Your argument about infanticide isn't comparable. Your hypothetical overtired mother is acting on impulse. Nobody has an abortion on impulse.
I assume this is responding to me. You should try and find the reply button lol. You should also try and do better at applying the barest minimum of logical consistency and language comprehension.
>I didn't argue that abortion was "okay." That's a shallow and casual word for something that's not morally blameless and that generally is emotionally miserable. I do think abortion should be legal.<
>I didn't argue that abortion was okay
>I do think abortion should be legal
If it's not okay, why wouldn't it be? Because it's the murder of a child? Or is it somehow something else? If we acknowledge that it is not okay because it is the murder of a child, how in the world can it be legal? And if it must for some unfathomable reason be legal anyways, why is only this particular form of child murder allowed, and not infanticide?
Try to think about what you are saying from a rational viewpoint here.
>The reason it was legalized in the first place was the high incidence of illegal abortions even at great medical risk. Sinful it may well be, but nobody in the legislative realm is in a position to cast the first stone.<
No, it was legalized to satisfy the feminist principle that women must be made equal to men in all possible aspects. Part of this means removing the burden of pregnancy. That is why it was legalized. Everything else is a cope. This is made apparent by, among other things, feminist worship of "RBG" as a pseudo-saint. "It's going to happen anyways even if you make it illegal" is such an insane excuse it's not even funny. Again: Imagine trying to justify any other crime this way. "Well, people are going to commit murders anyways, so no point in making it illegal!" Such a ridiculous thing to say.
Person Online,
You're making up your own definition of murder. Murder is a specific term in law. Until the US or a state defines abortion as murder, it isn't murder. It's an abortion. Since you're being pedantic about Catherine's comment.
People can have their own moral opinion and still support a law that allows others, with different morals, to make different choices.
The question is when should a ferus have rights? I like the states deciding for themselves until a federal law is.passed.
>You're making up your own definition of murder. Murder is a specific term in law. Until the US or a state defines abortion as murder, it isn't murder. It's an abortion. Since you're being pedantic about Catherine's comment.<
Yes, the law does not currently convey the moral reality that abortion is more or less synonymous with murder. I am arguing that the law is wrong and should be changed, and indeed many states are moving in that direction now that Roe v Wade is finally out of the way. This is quite similar to the way in which, before the Civil War, abolitionists argued that laws regarding the personhood of black people should be changed, and though it took much strife to get there, everyone eventually had to admit that they were right.
I know that all of this is super duper extremely complex and difficult to understand, so take the time to read it over a few or ten times if you need to.
>People can have their own moral opinion and still support a law that allows others, with different morals, to make different choices.<
Can we "support a law that allows other, with different morals, to make different choices" when it comes to who counts as a human being and thus which acts count (or do not count) as murder?
We can have different laws reflecting different opinions on many issues, but some things cannot be compromised on. It is fine for one state to have a lower tax rate and one state to have a higher tax rate. It is not fine for one state to define a certain class of people as not human beings and to legally endorse their murder.
>The question is when should a ferus have rights? I like the states deciding for themselves until a federal law is.passed.<
"The question is when should a negro have rights? I like the states deciding the issue of slavery for themselves until a federal law is passed."
No. Human beings have some basic rights that are not, or rather should not, be up for a majority vote. This includes the right to not be enslaved. It also includes the right to life, arguably the most basic right of all.
>Human beings have some basic rights that are not, or rather should not, be up for a majority vote.<
Isn't that how democracy should work? Otherwise, what is your authority for deciding? I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job, especially considering their location in time and space.
My personal opinion. I don't think it is evident that a 6 week human fetus, who is indistinguishable from a pig or rat fetus, should have the same rights as a viable human fetus and or an adult human being.
>Isn't that how democracy should work? Otherwise, what is your authority for deciding? I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job, especially considering their location in time and space.<
Are you implying that it would be okay for 51% of the population to vote to murder or enslave the other 49%? Or even 99% to vote to kill the 1%? On the basis that that would technically be democratic?
>My personal opinion. I don't think it is evident that a 6 week human fetus, who is indistinguishable from a pig or rat fetus<
A 6 week human fetus is easily distinguished from a pig or rat fetus. The first hint is that they are growing inside of a human female. I feel confident that a woman has never given birth to a rat or a pig. If there were a chance of that happening, this may be more of a relevant comparison.
>should have the same rights as a viable human fetus<
How do you distinguish "6 week fetus" from "viable fetus?"
>Are you implying that it would be okay for 51% of the population to vote to murder or enslave the other 49%? Or even 99% to vote to kill the 1%? On the basis that that would technically be democratic?<
Our country isn't set up that way. We have elected officials who are supposed to represent their people.
I'm suggesting that the people decide which law should be kept and changed by voting. And if another process was preferred, the people would have to elected officials to implement that process.
So if someone wants to make all abortions illegal, they need to get congress to pass that law. Otherwise, states decide and if people have a problem, they send it to the courts. I like the checks and balances. I also have a growing admiration for how difficult the constitution and government is to permanently change.
<How do you distinguish "6 week fetus" from "viable fetus?">
Literally a 6 week fetus cannot survive outside the mother. A viable fetus is developed enough to survive outside the mother. I would distinguish with medical technology.
We as a society have to decide. I mean these next questions rhetorically. How should we value a women's egg? Those eggs could easily become a viable human. Should we give those potential lives rights?