Roe v Wade Overturned?

[ChrisP]

Respect for life is not a "sick and dangerous perversion".

I agree. Banning abortion risks too much in terms of the mother's wellbeing for me to ever consider voting that way, what with amateur procedures (yeah I like to sterilise the thought of abortion).

I still find it hard to deal with, because no matter how it is approached I still think of a foetus as a child.

 

[Flappycat]

Respect for life is not a "sick and dangerous perversion".

I'm referring almost entirely to the political movement.

 

[Storm Moon]

The biggest thing I see here is taking a woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her body, especially if it's out of health concerns. I'm not saying I condone abortion, but if I were ever faced with the possibility that my child would be in danger of any disease, condition, or if I were not in the best shape to have a baby, then I would be faced with that choice. All in all, I do see abortion as being a cop-out to taking responsibility. I think the best way to avoid the choice would be to practice safe sex, or not have sex at all.

 

[Darkdale]

The pro-life movement is a sick and dangerous perversion of morality that must be curbed.

They aren't the ones killing their children. You have a sick and twisted view of morality.

 

[Flappycat]

They aren't the ones killing their children. You have a sick and twisted view of morality.

I'm not the one holding the existence of an embryo to be equal to the life of an infant or adult. I'm not out trying to screw up the lives of teenagers who just didn't want a child in their lives. Even a viable fetus isn't the same thing as two-year old child, and it never will be. It's morally irresponsible to conflate the two.

Having a different way of treating a "human life" at its various developmental stages isn't even a new idea. We have statutory rape laws, don't let people vote until they've reached a certain age, put an age limit on drinking. Conflating the "life" of an embryo with that of a child is worse than conflating the life of an adult with that of a PVS patient that doesn't even have the capacity of awareness left to it.

 

[ChrisP]

I'm not the one holding the existence of an embryo to be equal to the life of an infant or adult. I'm not out trying to screw up the lives of teenagers who just didn't want a child in their lives. Even a viable fetus isn't the same thing as two-year old child, and it never will be. It's morally irresponsible to conflate the two.

Having a different way of treating a "human life" at its various developmental stages isn't even a new idea. We have statutory rape laws, don't let people vote until they've reached a certain age, put an age limit on drinking. Conflating the "life" of an embryo with that of a child is worse than conflating the life of an adult with that of a PVS patient that doesn't even have the capacity of awareness left to it.

I'm not sure what you mean. By this logic you're saying there's an age limit for receiving a soul. I hold that as extremely contentious, human beings are human beings no matter what stage of development, in or outside the womb.

 

[Flappycat]

I'm not sure what you mean. By this logic you're saying there's an age limit for receiving a soul. I hold that as extremely contentious, human beings are human beings no matter what stage of development, in or outside the womb.

There is absolutely no such thing as a soul. An embryo is exactly what it is in physical fact.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

all things have souls, no matter what you say. It is still murder, no matter how you try to paint it. I find abortion morally repugnant, and a vile practice, but women still have the right to choose.

 

[Yerda]

I'll never get my head around the issue.

 

[Flappycat]

all things have souls, no matter what you say.

This is false. There is no such thing. There is no scientific evidence of any such thing. We don't make laws based on the assumption that there is such a thing.

 

[ChrisP]

This is false. There is no such thing. There is no scientific evidence of any such thing. We don't make laws based on the assumption that there is such a thing.

Despite the fact that I agree with our local Jedi Master, that's an entirely different argument.

Either way it's still human it's still alive and it's still being killed.

 

[Aqualung]

They won't overturn Roe vs Wade. It's set in history. It's part of our law. They don't overturn stuff like that on a whim. It's a bad law, but it's there, adn I don't think it will be overturned for a very long time, if ever

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

science shmience. It can't explain anything spiritual. And no, it is not false, no matter what you say. you have a soul, even if you don't believe in it.

 

[Flappycat]

Despite the fact that I agree with our local Jedi Master, that's an entirely different argument.

I think that it is highly relevant. You have no right to judge a person for a behavior based on your belief in something that you cannot demonstrate the existence of.

Either way it's still human it's still alive and it's still being killed.

What makes it wrong to kill a human being? Do you even understand something as simple as this beyond "God doesn't like it"?

What do you feel makes something a person? Do you have any real understanding of what makes us human?

 

[Flappycat]

science shmience. It can't explain anything spiritual. And no, it is not false, no matter what you say. you have a soul, even if you don't believe in it.

I seriously doubt that you can explain anything spiritual. Explain to me exactly what you think a soul is without being completely vaporous and failing to make any kind of point. Show my prior experience to be wrong, Jedi.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

its wrong because you are imposing your will on them, and they have no consent. you are taking away their freedom. What makes us human? The Force

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

it is part of the unifying force. but you are right, i can't explain anything spiritual. But the difference is that i dont call it false because i cant explain it.

 

[Flappycat]

its wrong because you are imposing your will on them, and they have no consent.

An embryo isn't capable of consenting to anything. You can't violate the will of something that lacks the capacity for will.

you are taking away their freedom.

To possess freedom, one must possess the capacity for will, something that an embryo doesn't have. I'm not sure about yon viable fetus, though.

What makes us human? The Force

Funny.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i was not talking about the fetus, but was responding to why it was wrong to kill a human.

 

[Flappycat]

it is part of the unifying force. but you are right, i can't explain anything spiritual. But the difference is that i dont call it false because i cant explain it.

There is no objectively observable evidence for it. One can't prove that something doesn't exist, but it is utterly ridiculous to fault one for considering something that you cannot demonstrate the existence of to be completely false. It's even more ridiculous to judge a person for violating a part of your ethic that is contingent upon the existence of something that person does not share your belief in and which you can provide no objective evidence or rational backing for.