Court throws out Arkansas Abortion Ban

[Vidav]

Same old same old. The only objective line is conception. Before there is no existence. Afterwards a living member of our species exists. All of the other stuff is based on subjective opinion of what makes a member of our species "human" or "a person" or something like that.

And to me that's an irony of the abortion controversy. People say that those who are "pro-life" are imposing their beliefs. But the people who say that are imposing their beliefs about what makes a member of our species "a person" or "human" or something like that on living members of our species. They're saying, "They don't meet MY definition of what a 'person' is so it's OK to kill them as a matter of convenience."

Like saying whether or not a member of our species can feel pain somehow makes the difference. Why? That's just a totally arbitrary thing. You're sanctioning killing a living individual. It's not a "potential" life. It's a living animal. It's already a life. And it's been a life since genetic recombination was complete at conception.

That's very inconvenient for us. But it's the reality.

Meh, a fetus is no different than a dog. You really think a 13 week fetus is self aware? I say, as long as it's your fetus you can do what you want with it. Just don't fuck with other people's property.

[JohnStOnge]

Meh, a fetus is no different than a dog. You really think a 13 week fetus is self aware? I say, as long as it's your fetus you can do what you want with it. Just don't **** with other people's property.

The difference between a human fetus and a dog is that the human fetus is a member of our species and we know that if it develops normally it will become self aware. It will not be self aware at birth. And for that reason some medical ethicists have argued that we should not consider them to be persons at that point.

But we know that at some point they will become self aware.

To me it's kind of like if you have someone in a coma. They are not aware of anything at that point. But if you know there is a high probability that they will come out of the coma and be aware again I'd think most people would say it's not OK to kill them just because they are not self-aware at that moment.

A dog is a dog. It is not self aware at any stage of development. It is not a member of a sentient species. And, most importantly, it is not a member of OUR species.

[BDKJMU]

whoa nellie

youve got a whole lot going on in there

Im not saying the religious types have the moral high ground because of their religion- rather i think the "moral" high ground is not religion based- it just happens that on this issue, the religious position is the moral one, but I arrive at the same conclusions without any religious conviction

I never asserted that dehumanizing people is anomalous- we do it every time we go to war, execute a criminal, or reading the crime blotter in the newspaper

finally, we do and I do dehumanize savages re: your comparison to the middle east. Youre simply repackaging the old "conservatives are against abortion but fir the death penalty" argument but even fancying it up it still doesnt work- the difference is innocence. a human fetus is innocent and therefore in my own insignificant opinion i oppose killing it for convenience. When it comes to some murderous ISIL brute I have no issue with having death and destruction visited on him- especially in the interest of protecting the innocent. If I were coming at it from a religious sense (thou shalt to kill) then yeah- the two would be unreconcilable

i dont lose any sleep over my own position and I dont feel that it is dichotomous at all

I'm not talking about ISIL
I'm talking about the innocent children of the middle east
You know - the ones in the 20th month term not the 20th week

I have no problem with your opinion
and you are one of VERY FEW interesting and thoughtful people on this forum
in regards to the Abortion Topic

We kill innocents around the globe without a moments thought
we justify it in a thousand ways
and no matter how innocent an American fetus is
why is it more important than a little brown baby..?

I know the answer: Its NOT

and everybody in the Anti-Abortion camp
anxiously explains away any debate once the fetus is crawling around outside
Even thought IT TOO IS INNOCENT

The day I see Texas pastors picketing Lockheed Martin
the week after they march on Planned Parent hood - You'll have my attention

As it stands right now: Innocent - as a drawing card - is not really that important apparently

Comparing the UNINTENTIONAL killings of civilians in the Mid East to the INTENTIONAL killing of over 1 million fetuses a year in the US is a silly comparison.

The "we" you are referring too doesn't intentionally kill any brown babies. It happens at a lower rate than in past wars, but it still happens unintentionally. We try to kill Mr ISIL and his co horts. The problem is Mr ISIL operates amongst the civilian populations, so sometimes when we kill a Mr ISIL that little brown baby gets unintentionally killed along with him. Or we hit what we're aiming at, but it turns out the Mr ISIL wasn't there and a little brown baby was. Or we don't hit what we're aiming at due to bad intelligence or errant munitions and hit where a brown baby was.

On the other hand there is nothing unintentional about the 1+ million abortion procedures performed every year in the US.

[CID1990]

whoa nellie

youve got a whole lot going on in there

Im not saying the religious types have the moral high ground because of their religion- rather i think the "moral" high ground is not religion based- it just happens that on this issue, the religious position is the moral one, but I arrive at the same conclusions without any religious conviction

I never asserted that dehumanizing people is anomalous- we do it every time we go to war, execute a criminal, or reading the crime blotter in the newspaper

finally, we do and I do dehumanize savages re: your comparison to the middle east. Youre simply repackaging the old "conservatives are against abortion but fir the death penalty" argument but even fancying it up it still doesnt work- the difference is innocence. a human fetus is innocent and therefore in my own insignificant opinion i oppose killing it for convenience. When it comes to some murderous ISIL brute I have no issue with having death and destruction visited on him- especially in the interest of protecting the innocent. If I were coming at it from a religious sense (thou shalt to kill) then yeah- the two would be unreconcilable

i dont lose any sleep over my own position and I dont feel that it is dichotomous at all

I'm not talking about ISIL
I'm talking about the innocent children of the middle east
You know - the ones in the 20th month term not the 20th week

I have no problem with your opinion
and you are one of VERY FEW interesting and thoughtful people on this forum
in regards to the Abortion Topic

We kill innocents around the globe without a moments thought
we justify it in a thousand ways
and no matter how innocent an American fetus is
why is it more important than a little brown baby..?

I know the answer: Its NOT

and everybody in the Anti-Abortion camp
anxiously explains away any debate once the fetus is crawling around outside
Even thought IT TOO IS INNOCENT

The day I see Texas pastors picketing Lockheed Martin
the week after they march on Planned Parent hood - You'll have my attention

As it stands right now: Innocent - as a drawing card - is not really that important apparently

of course there is a killing of innocents in war- i can reconcile being in favor of war with the knowledge that innocents will die (because there ARE justifications for war - where the alternative can be even more horrible) ive never asserted that our hands are clean

I dont necessarily agree with our current interventions- but what you are talking about is that we will as wantonly kill an Afghan child as we will a fetus in an abortion clinic, and that isnt true. Ive seen- with my own eyes- a man die because he held his fire due to who was in his line of fire.

it is all about intent- its a thin difference, but there is a difference

[kalm]

I'm not talking about ISIL
I'm talking about the innocent children of the middle east
You know - the ones in the 20th month term not the 20th week

I have no problem with your opinion
and you are one of VERY FEW interesting and thoughtful people on this forum
in regards to the Abortion Topic

We kill innocents around the globe without a moments thought
we justify it in a thousand ways
and no matter how innocent an American fetus is
why is it more important than a little brown baby..?

I know the answer: Its NOT

and everybody in the Anti-Abortion camp
anxiously explains away any debate once the fetus is crawling around outside
Even thought IT TOO IS INNOCENT

The day I see Texas pastors picketing Lockheed Martin
the week after they march on Planned Parent hood - You'll have my attention

As it stands right now: Innocent - as a drawing card - is not really that important apparently

of course there is a killing of innocents in war- i can reconcile being in favor of war with the knowledge that innocents will die (because there ARE justifications for war - where the alternative can be even more horrible) ive never asserted that our hands are clean

I dont necessarily agree with our current interventions- but what you are talking about is that we will as wantonly kill an Afghan child as we will a fetus in an abortion clinic, and that isnt true. Ive seen- with my own eyes- a man die because he held his fire due to who was in his line of fire.

it is all about intent- its a thin difference, but there is a difference

But those who are hawkish still have a tendency to dehumanize an entire country/ethnicity to justify, right?

Great back and forth, btw.

[CID1990]

of course there is a killing of innocents in war- i can reconcile being in favor of war with the knowledge that innocents will die (because there ARE justifications for war - where the alternative can be even more horrible) ive never asserted that our hands are clean

I dont necessarily agree with our current interventions- but what you are talking about is that we will as wantonly kill an Afghan child as we will a fetus in an abortion clinic, and that isnt true. Ive seen- with my own eyes- a man die because he held his fire due to who was in his line of fire.

it is all about intent- its a thin difference, but there is a difference

But those who are hawkish still have a tendency to dehumanize an entire country/ethnicity to justify, right?

Great back and forth, btw.

Dehumanization before the fighting starts is not as prevalent as you might think- you dont have to do it to go to war- you have to do it to kill. Note that before the Iraq war it was all about Saddam. If anything, we played the Iraqi people as victims rather than bucktoothed savages the way we did theJapanese.

Fast forward to today where we court martial Marines for pissing on Taliban corpses - so I'd say we use dehumanization as a viable war strategy much less than we have in years past

that said, ISIL is doing a pretty good job of dehumanizing themselves- we really would have little work to do there

[Chizzang]

My point is how strategic we are about dehumanizing...
We (as a culture) do it every day
but we seem to only care about it intermittently

You know, like when its the only possible point of our argument - then its the trump card
But otherwise not so much

in the larger global picture concerning mass murder and epic atrocities
Abortion is a tiny blip

It's a lot like Christians arguing about how important the books of the bible are
When over 90% haven't read it and the religion as a whole largely dismisses the entire canon

I have a really hard time taking your debate position seriously

[CID1990]

I have a really hard time taking your debate position seriously

I cannot see why- you should really stop trying to put a nexus between things where one doesn't need to exist

I argue that abortion is immoral- it is the ultimate killing of the innocents - because this is an abortion thread

if we have a thread on the innate cruelty of man writ large Ill be happy to throw my two cents worth in if it stimulates me - you might even catch me in an inconsistency or two - but when it comes to morality youre looking for absolutism. Thats very fundamentalist, in a way

And maybe youre confused- I have never asserted that killing people is immoral across the board. Some people need it

[Chizzang]

I have a really hard time taking your debate position seriously

I cannot see why- you should really stop trying to put a nexus between things where one doesn't need to exist

I argue that abortion is immoral- it is the ultimate killing of the innocents - because this is an abortion thread

if we have a thread on the innate cruelty of man writ large Ill be happy to throw my two cents worth in if it stimulates me - you might even catch me in an inconsistency or two - but when it comes to morality youre looking for absolutism. Thats very fundamentalist, in a way

And maybe youre confused- I have never asserted that killing people is immoral across the board. Some people need it

Its a fascinating situation, the whole on-again-off-again morality
Taking the moral high ground on abortion is easy to do
Its nice on occasion to land on moral high ground in a debate

But I'm pretty comfortable with humans killing - its what we do
all the historical data is in - carpet bombing for freedom - abortion - not taking your 2 year old to the hospital for penicillin to save its life because Jesus - shooting all the unemployed black people - Ebola - Zombies and the four horsemen of the apocalypse

I'm all for it... I don't think abortions make us less human
In fact I think it is perfectly human based on everything I've seen

[CID1990]

I cannot see why- you should really stop trying to put a nexus between things where one doesn't need to exist

I argue that abortion is immoral- it is the ultimate killing of the innocents - because this is an abortion thread

if we have a thread on the innate cruelty of man writ large Ill be happy to throw my two cents worth in if it stimulates me - you might even catch me in an inconsistency or two - but when it comes to morality youre looking for absolutism. Thats very fundamentalist, in a way

And maybe youre confused- I have never asserted that killing people is immoral across the board. Some people need it

Its a fascinating situation, the whole on-again-off-again morality
Taking the moral high ground on abortion is easy to do
Its nice on occasion to land on moral high ground in a debate

But I'm pretty comfortable with humans killing - its what we do
all the historical data is in - carpet bombing for freedom - abortion - not taking your 2 year old to the hospital for penicillin to save its life because Jesus - shooting all the unemployed black people - Ebola - Zombies and the four horsemen of the apocalypse

I'm all for it... I don't think abortions make us less human
In fact I think it is perfectly human based on everything I've seen

Ok- but if I take your argument in the opposite direction (and do what you're doing to me) I could as easily accuse you of being ok with the small change killing we do - but finding wholesale genocide to be unconscionable- which is also inconsistent

but i agree with you- i think abortion is immoral, but im not picketing abortion clinics- it is, like you say- what we do. and Im not indignant about it, either- there's millions of windmills out there to tilt at and if Im going to get riled up Id prefer to save my energy for junk science. sort of like your Comcast

but Id still support a ban on elective abortions past 20 weeks

[Chizzang]

Its a fascinating situation, the whole on-again-off-again morality
Taking the moral high ground on abortion is easy to do
Its nice on occasion to land on moral high ground in a debate

But I'm pretty comfortable with humans killing - its what we do
all the historical data is in - carpet bombing for freedom - abortion - not taking your 2 year old to the hospital for penicillin to save its life because Jesus - shooting all the unemployed black people - Ebola - Zombies and the four horsemen of the apocalypse

I'm all for it... I don't think abortions make us less human
In fact I think it is perfectly human based on everything I've seen

Ok- but if I take your argument in the opposite direction (and do what you're doing to me) I could as easily accuse you of being ok with the small change killing we do - but finding wholesale genocide to be unconscionable- which is also inconsistent

but i agree with you- i think abortion is immoral, but im not picketing abortion clinics- it is, like you say- what we do. and Im not indignant about it, either- there's millions of windmills out there to tilt at and if Im going to get riled up Id prefer to save my energy for junk science. sort of like your Comcast

but Id still support a ban on elective abortions past 20 weeks

And that's ultimately where it seems like (the very scarce) common ground lands
pretty squarely at 20 weeks - all junk science aside

The Internet:
Built with American Tax dollars
All profits funneled to Comcast

[89Hen]

and everybody in the Anti-Abortion camp
anxiously explains away any debate once the fetus is crawling around outside
Even thought IT TOO IS INNOCENT

And he's off the rails once again.

[JohnStOnge]

abortion - not taking your 2 year old to the hospital for penicillin to save its life because Jesus

Obviously two completely different things in terms of intent. In one case you are pro-actively and intentionally killing your own progeny. In the other case you believe that the best decision to save your kid if to rely on a deity rather than penicillin. In the first case you WANT to kill your own. In the second case you may be misguided but you want to save your own.

Two completely different things.