Only a ban after viability. My opinion is that the best arguments support removal of support, not necessarily the killing of the unborn.
I don’t think that would make me an extreme right winger. I think a majority of Americans support some limitations, and I don’t think a majority of Americans are extreme right wingers.
I believe that is why most abortions are performed.
I don’t think the reasons a right is granted have to be the same reasons one uses when they exercise the right.
This is separate from my argument, but IMO, I don’t see much differences between aborting a dog fetus and a human one. They have about the same level of consciousness, feelings of pain, etc… The things that separate a humans from other animals (greater intelligence, consciousness, etc.) haven’t developed yet. That fetus doesn’t have a personality.
Again, this is just my opinion, and not really part of my argument.
As a broad statement, probably not. I think there would have to be a lot of nuance considered. If we were considering a suffering child that was going to certainly die, I think removal of support systems can be justified.
I am for assisted suicide though. Of course, lots of caveats.
So that’s like what 20 weeks right now, and might be 0 in the future?
Sorry, I was being mildly sarcastic. Yes, a majority of Americans support increased restrictions on abortion. No, you are not actually extreme. Yes, you’d be labeled a radical right winger by the left.
And you’d apply this to born humans also? You can stab a person in the heart who is brain dead, even if they are going to wake up in the future?
Okay, so why is an unborn life less valuable in a reasoned way that can’t apply to born humans?
If they are brain dead, they are not waking up. But, more so I don’t have much issue with support being removed (which is different than stabbing them) if it is shown that the person is indeed brain dead.
It is no longer the person people know. It is just a body being kept alive by machines.
Well the less valuable part is my opinion.
But the reason that removing the mother’s support from the unborn is justified doesn’t have to do with value. It has to do with my believing that personal autonomy rights should come above the right to another person’s life (see the violinist argument).
No, you are wrong. It is about when a fetus is considered a person.
Besides, the whole inherent value of human life is total bs. The people who say it are hypocrites and well, liars. When pro life people stand up against war; when they argue for universal health care; when they demand that we take in illegals and care for the homeless, etc. Then they can say they believe in the inherent value of (all) human life. The reality is that we all do indeed, see the value of human life as mutable.
By your own definition you are claiming that a human fetus isn’t human or isn’t alive? Using terms without being able to define or examine your statements is a hallmark of pro-abortion.
This is again obfuscative nonsense. You can be rationally consistent, pro-death penalty, and against the killing of the innocent. You can be in favor of going to war to stop the nazis AND value human life. You are once again showing your inability to meet in the middle for discussion. You are making large assumptions contrary to the beliefs of the other side and using those as a starting point for your argument. You have to make an argument for your beliefs FIRST.
Besides the mirror hypocrisy of the left is far more striking. Pro abortion of the innocent, helpless, and voiceless, but anti death penalty for a serial rapist and murderer. In favor of ruthlessly eliminating unwanted humans, but oh so caring about the poor and dispossessed. Donating to the institution that overwhelmingly eliminates “undesirable” blacks from the population, but vehemently shouts about how black lives matter.
Killing a human isn’t always wrong. I think we agree on that. To make killing a human acceptable I think we need justification. I disagree with the death penalty BTW, but some see certain crimes being committed by an individual as adequate justification for the death penalty. The issues I see with it are that we aren’t always correct. We have convicted plenty of people who didn’t do the crime.
IMO, the justification for killing a fetus is that the mother should have rights to her own body.
I didn’t make that statement, but absolutely it’s justifiable to kill an adult in certain cases.
To be rationally consistent on the issue I’d also need to be in favor of killing a fetus if you convicted it of the same sort of crimes… which is bizarre and impossible, but theoretically I’d probably sign off on.
Well, you keep confusing me with seemingly conflicting statements. I didn’t think you were in favor of the active and willful killing of the fetus except when you seem to advocate mercy killings. At least once “viable” which is subject to becoming at conception in the future. You still seem to have some cognitive dissidence between your definition of human life and how a fetus should be treated. You never answered the conjoined twin question. Is it murder if one twin dismembers a parasitic conjoined twin?
I didn’t feel like typing it all out. Yes, I think the justification of an abortion of a pregnancy involves a removal of support (not the killing of the fetus). In the case of the fetus being viable, the pregnancy could be terminated without killing the fetus (what I think should be done). But in the case where the fetus isn’t viable, I think terminating the pregnancy likely involves killing the fetus because it is more humane than letting it die on it’s own.
Maybe I inferred wrong?
I thought I did?
Well, I think that would be murder because of how it was done. However, if the non parasitic twin removed support to the parasitic twin and left the parasitic twin to die on his own, that wouldn’t be murder. It would be a justified action.
It exists, i.e., is in a state of being. Is it a human being/person? It is not legally considered that.
Human what? It’s a human fetus. You can keep asking the same question but legally, a fetus is not considered a person. Move on.
Is it always wrong?
You can’t get an abortion at that point.
Are you a woman? I gave you the legal status of a fetus. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it. It doesn’t change that. I never gave my definition of anything as I am not arrogant enough to believe I can go through the world using my own definitions for things.
And by this logic, you can value human life while being a nazi.
You didn’t. His issue is that he is trying to reconcile the concept of inherence with the reality that humans measure the value of human life, a value that can change based on time and place among other reasons. Reality doesn’t care about ideology which is why ideologues always come up with exceptions.
So we’ve moved the goal post from Webster to the law…
OK. Let’s use the legal definition. Can you either provide it or provide the some reference to the law where I can look up how it’s defined?
If a conservative congress passes a law affirming a fetus is a person and Trump signs it into law, you will then agree that a fetus is in fact a person?
Only keep asking because you keep obfuscating and moving goal posts. You shouldn’t use words you either cannot or will not define. A human fetus is a human. A human child is a human. A human adult is a human. It is not wrong to call a child a human, full stop. It does not require additional adjectives. Adding fetus is not a rational counterargument to the fact that a human fetus is a human. Your arguments get more vapid and incoherent the deeper anyone looks.
Ah, the old question with a question. I never stated if it was wrong or not. It is pertinent to your argument though. If morality has no factual derivation, should we stop enforcing the opinion that killing adults in cold blood is wrong? How do you arrive at the opinion what is currently defined as murder is wrong and where do you get the authority to push that opinion on others?
Yes you can. It is/was legal but rare. But more poignantly there are elected member of the left that advocate for it.
And the goal posts move again.
You shouldn’t speak if you don’t know the definition of words.
Even further I agreed to meet you on your side and use your definition for the sake of discussion. You’ve vaguely referred to one. I addressed it. You changed to another definition. I addressed that one too. Now wholly without argument you attack words for even having definitions. Without definition there is no discussion, no communication, no exchange of thought. But I’m guessing that’s probably what you intend.
Right, which makes your argument even more absurd.
No, I’m forced to ask questions like this to highlight the incoherence of your position. My position and belief is entirely consistent as far as anyone has ever been able to show me. And what’s more if you want to know what I think, I’ll actually answer questions.
I would have to get over my shock that we invented a time machine first.
It’s a human fetus. You are stating your belief.
That is your belief.
I don’t even know what you are arguing. I get it, you’re against abortion. Want a cookie? I’m simply telling you that when you say fact, you mean belief and opinion. You believe a fetus is a human being. Fine. That’s your business but it’s a fact that the law does not agree.
You can come up with a million reasons why a fetus is a person, and you won’t say anything new or revolutionary on that subject, and it will still be your opinion. The fact is that the law does not consider a fetus a person.
Maybe one day that fact will change but it won’t change the reality that personhood is ultimately a human construct and there is nothing inherent about it. The law changing would only further enforce it.