[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]
Weak.
You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]
…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.
[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]
There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.
It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?
We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).
But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.
[/quote]
Hmmmmm…so a living baby that was born one hour ago is definitely a human, more than a collection of cells, but the humanness of a living baby that is one hour away from being born is questionable? Or one week? Or one month? Or three months and one day?
Nooooooo…Sparts, you’re logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease. You cannot with intellectual consistency argue FOR the state intervening on the behalf of a one hour old child but NOT for one who is one hour, or three months + one hour, from being born.
Your final paragraph is so absurd I don’t even feel the need to respond to it, by the way.[/quote]
1 hr after conception the baby will literally be 4 cells. “You’re {sic] logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease”
I take a pragmatic approach to human life. I’m against murder only on the basis of the suffering it creates. For the individul murdered and for the bereaved.
But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely.
I hate those fucking pricks standing in the way of the fucking morning after pill which merely prevents conception and doesn’t even cause an abortion. The dang pills should be distributed to anyone who needs them for 15 cents a pop. Pretty much prevent late term abortion wouldn’t it?[/quote]
So if I kill a guy under anesthesia, its okay?
Let me ask you a question… does this rag smell like chloroform to you?[/quote]
No, especially if he has any family, dependents, has a job, contributes to the economy, gives to charity, checks in on his elderly neighbors etc. A fetus doesnt do / have any of that shit.[/quote]
Neither do 2 year old orphans.
And the loss of an unborn child can cause serious emotional harm. Further an unborn does have a family as much as you do.[/quote]
Im against the killing of 2year old orphans. I take a pragmatic approach but not ONLY a pragmatic approach.
Yes the loss of an unborn child can cause emotional harm. But sometimes you choose to accept a level of emotional harm to not raise a child in poverty/abuse/suffering. And sometimes it creates little or no emotional harm.
I can respect the pro-life position and I understand it. I just disagree with it.
