So about that abortion thing..

[Jaguar]

As far as I can tell nothing in this post disagrees with anything I've said or believe in.

edit: Other than the idea that my view is morally depraved.

What I objected to was this:

I clearly don't have the right to decide that for anyone. Nor do you.

I think mothers should have the right to choose that.

To me, it's in direct conflict with this, which I agree with:

The only reasonable position is that there are certain cases where it should clearly be allowed - even if it the only case you support is where the baby is braindead and the mother's life is in danger.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It actually mostly goes on under the surface these days. It's still a big issue to the 20% of people who think it should be illegal in all circumstances, and the 25% who think it should be legal in all circumstances. Politicians can and do give some quiet euphemisms to pander to those respective groups, but they understand that if they talk too much, they'll just rile up the group on the other side and annoy the people in the center.

It's the people who aren't running for office who are free to go bonkers.

Truth. I do know some folk who'd be full in the Democratic Party... but, abortion. Though those aren't all that many.

I don't really agree with this. I don't think it matters if you believe they are people or not.

We have laws that allow us to kill people legally all over the place. Even if it's just that a doctor is allowed to turn off life support machines or allow police and/or military to kill legally.

Most people would say that killing in self defence is not murder.

There is a reason why people fight so tooth and nail as to where life begins. If the fetus is a person there is a higher standard that applies to them. Yes, we have laws that allow killing, but it has to be somewhat justified - so allowing someone to pass away, or killing someone when they legitimately fear their lives are in danger (legitimately is the key - its why people shooting others in the back on their property isn't ok unless you live in Texas), etc. is acceptable, but, as said, those people have a higher standard that, say, even an animal with respect to when you can let that life go.

[MikeH]

Cultural difference. To my European eyes the "in certain circumstances" is implicit in "I think mothers should have the right to choose that."

[Asher]

I know HC et al will all say "those things aren't the same!"

I didn't say they are, I am just pointing out that whether a foetus is a person or not is not the deciding factor in the debate.

I've always been confused why pro-Life people also tend to be pro-Death Penalty and pro-Standyourground-law.

And also anti-government assistance. All of these poor people getting abortions because they can't afford to raise children are going to need a lot of state assistance. Maybe universal daycare, so the mother can work to feed her kids? Maybe more food stamps and welfare payments?

Also anti-universal health care. Human lives are so ****ing sacred they force everyone to fend for themselves.

I don't think they think through the ramifications of what they advocate.

[Guynemer]

Oh hey, we already got to page 3!

[kentonio]

That is 100% true. I'm not sure what addressing strawmen, as in the OP, will do, but the main question really is unrelated.

What part of my op was a 'strawman' for goodness sake? I posted about a new study and a highly topical news story.

[Jaguar]

I've always been confused why pro-Life people also tend to be pro-Death Penalty and pro-Standyourground-law.

Surprise Jaguar position: I am against the death penalty.

[Asher]

I've always been confused why pro-Life people also tend to be pro-Death Penalty and pro-Standyourground-law.

Surprise Jaguar position: I am against the death penalty.

[regexcellent]

I don't really agree with this. I don't think it matters if you believe they are people or not.

We have laws that allow us to kill people legally all over the place. Even if it's just that a doctor is allowed to turn off life support machines or allow police and/or military to kill legally.

Most people would say that killing in self defence is not murder.

There are legal killings for people who actually deserve it, like murderers and rapists, not long term medical patients that we don't feel like paying for anymore or unborn children.

[MikeH]

There is a reason why people fight so tooth and nail as to where life begins. If the fetus is a person there is a higher standard that applies to them. Yes, we have laws that allow killing, but it has to be somewhat justified - so allowing someone to pass away, or killing someone when they legitimately fear their lives are in danger (legitimately is the key - its why people shooting others in the back on their property isn't ok unless you live in Texas), etc. is acceptable, but, as said, those people have a higher standard that, say, even an animal with respect to when you can let that life go.

Yes, I think the debate should be about what is the standard we require.

My view is that it isn't as simple as "person or not person". The older the foetus gets the more like a person it becomes and the higher the standard should be.

[Asher]

There are legal killings for people who actually deserve it, like murderers and rapists, not long term medical patients that we don't feel like paying for anymore or unborn children.

Not everyone convicted of murder is a murderer. You're killing innocent people who "deserve it", too. Which makes you a murderer, so you deserve it.

[Jaguar]

Oh hey, we already got to page 3!

While I respect what you're trying to do, you must use a ridiculously low number of posts per page and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Kuciwalker]

Nearly all of the cases of legal homicide can be divided into two buckets:

1. The person either isn't "really alive" any more (brain dead, etc.) or specifically requests death (euthanasia)

2. The other side of the scale is another human life.

#2 is rare in the case of abortion and nearly everyone, even the extremists, agrees that it should be legal to abort to save the life of the mother. #1 is where the meat of the argument should be - when does the fetus become "really alive"? - but the pro-abortion side deliberately avoids that question and poses the issue as purely a question of the mother's right to her own body. (See Asher.)

edit: massive xpost, this was re: #60

[Asher]

Yes, I think the debate should be about what is the standard we require.

My view is that it isn't as simple as "person or not person". The older the foetus gets the more like a person it becomes and the higher the standard should be.

This.

[regexcellent]

I've always been confused why pro-Life people also tend to be pro-Death Penalty and pro-Standyourground-law.

That's because you haven't thought about it very hard.

A fetus has done nothing wrong to deserve to be killed. A murderer has murdered someone. That is a crime. A crime deserves punishment. Self-defense, as well, has a preservation of life purpose. When your life is threatened by an armed individual, who deserves to live more, you or the criminal?