So about that abortion thing..

[MikeH]

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

I think in Europe #2 is pretty much where all the discussion is.

[Asher]

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.)

Huh? I'm only in favour of legalizing first trimester abortions and I've argued at length in the past as to why I chose that timeline. I just realized such detailed, thought-out arguments are useless against a mass of people who don't give a **** and want to think the world is black and white.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

QFT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

But the problem is that once you accept that fetus = person, the vast majority of people are going to demand an incredibly high standard in which to terminate (as is already the case in terms of other issues - you have to a really good reason for killing someone else). Most people on the pro-choice side don't want that high standard.

I have no objections to abortion when the life of the mother is at risk (kind of, but not quite, akin to self defense), and I'm for abortion in the 1st trimester, but squemish as to what to do in the 2nd (and I think it should be basically locked down in the 3rd). But that's because I believe that it becomes a person in the 2nd trimester.

[kentonio]

#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.)

Why do you find it so difficult to understand quite how important the mothers right to her own body really is? This is at the very heart of the whole issue, and without understanding that you will never understand the people you're arguing against.

[regexcellent]

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.

We execute like, what, maybe a dozen people a year or something? How many abortions do you think there are? And besides, we do our best with the justice system to make sure people are guilty. With a fetus, we know that he isn't guilty.

[regexcellent]

Why do you find it so difficult to understand quite how important the mothers right to her own body really is? This is at the very heart of the whole issue, and without understanding that you will never understand the people you're arguing against.

Maybe if you considered the fact that it's just as reasonable to frame it in terms of the fetus' body you wouldn't be so confused. PLEASE, for ONCE, acknowledge that IF THE FETUS IS A MORAL PERSON the mother's body is SECONDARY TO PRESERVATION OF LIFE.

[MikeH]

That is a crime. A crime deserves punishment.

Why?

Jesus tells us to forgive not seek retribution.

[Asher]

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?

1) Not all convicted murderers are murderers. You have way too much faith in the justice system to be making life and death decisions. Again, a simple black & white argument from you when reality is more nuanced.
2) Stand your ground laws are far more than just self-defense. You should know that.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh? I'm only in favour of legalizing first trimester abortions and I've argued at length in the past as to why I chose that timeline. I just realized such detailed, thought-out arguments are useless against a mass of people who don't give a **** and want to think the world is black and white.

I will admit I misunderstood your position and I'm actually surprised that your position is far more restrictive than mine.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and for Asher (), I'm anti-death penalty and pro-universal health care.

[Asher]

We execute like, what, maybe a dozen people a year or something? How many abortions do you think there are? And besides, we do our best with the justice system to make sure people are guilty. With a fetus, we know that he isn't guilty.

A fetus is going to be guilty of a whole host of crimes eventually. Sexual assault, physical assault, emotional abuse, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Why do you find it so difficult to understand quite how important the mothers right to her own body really is? This is at the very heart of the whole issue, and without understanding that you will never understand the people you're arguing against.

Why do you find it so difficult to understand quite how important the child's life to its own body really is? In particular, its right not to be murdered?

[MikeH]

But the problem is that once you accept that fetus = person, the vast majority of people are going to demand an incredibly high standard in which to terminate (as is already the case in terms of other issues - you have to a really good reason for killing someone else). Most people on the pro-choice side don't want that high standard.

I have no objections to abortion when the life of the mother is at risk (kind of, but not quite, akin to self defense), and I'm for abortion in the 1st trimester, but squemish as to what to do in the 2nd (and I think it should be basically locked down in the 3rd). But that's because I believe that it becomes a person in the 2nd trimester.

So basically we have the same view - with some slight difference on dates.

[regexcellent]

1) Not all convicted murderers are murderers. You have way too much faith in the justice system to be making life and death decisions. Again, a simple black & white argument from you when reality is more nuanced.
2) Stand your ground laws are far more than just self-defense. You should know that.

1) The details and nuts and bolts and such of the death penalty aren't all that relevant. My point is that supporting the death penalty in principle and being against abortion are not at all contradictory opinions.
2) Um, no they are not. "Stand your ground" means that if your life is threatened you can respond with deadly force. THAT'S IT.