If abortion was to be made illegal ....

[PLATO]

What you're describing makes sense if you are describing the political difficulty of the situation. If you mean it to be morally normative, you're denying the possibility of any morally legitimate desire by a minority to prohibit an activity. So, for example, anyone who was against slavery in at a certain early point in American history would have been out of line for trying to impose his views, because most of the overall population, even if you count slaves' opinions, would have seen it as the natural order of things. Likewise anybody in certain societies who opposes/d, say, child brides, taking slaves in war, pederasty, human sacrifice, concubines, or FGM. In those societies, the substantial majority, including many of those we would consider victims, sees/saw the activity as perfectly normal.

XPost, replying to 116.

Oh I agree. I am addressing the political difficulty. That is why I advocate tolerance based on a free society. I find abortion morally repugnant, but (as I have said), I am forced to leave to each persons conscience. As far as slavery is concerned, I think there is a very similar problem...slaves were defined as 2/3 of a person at one point in this country and thus not given "full human status" if you will. They were subject to some protection, but were denied others. Over time the moral correctness of determining slavery as evil won out. This was not an overnight civil war thing. Slavery was common in the north as well as the South for the vast majority of pre civil war history. People espoused their beliefs and the moral wrongness of it caused it to gradually fade in the north...as it would have in the South given time. I have seen many, many estimates that the South would have eliminated slavery by around 1880. Britian had slavery until 1856 (I believe that is right...historians correct me if I am wrong!).

When you have the moral high ground, you will eventually prevail. I believe that abortions days are numbered...not because the nation will force it, but because eventually its wrongness will gain more universal acceptance. I hope I am right....

[DinoDoc]

It is an easy transition for many to associate abortion with euthanasia, but not when you take it in the context of what the fundamental debate really is...the definition of when human life begins.

Then the question you asked makes no sense. If you want the debate premised on when human life begins, what's the point of asking about cost? And if we bring the notion of cost to society into the conversation, the question I asked is a valid one.

[PLATO]

Then the question you asked makes no sense. If you want the debate premised on when human life begins, what's the point of asking about cost? And if we bring the notion of cost to society into the conversation, the question I asked is a valid one.

I see where you are going with that now. "What possible cost to society could there be if it is NOT human life?" A good point, but I believe that the merit of my questions still stand as ones that should be answered. I also believe that the answers, when known, will cause revulsion among the pro abortion segment of society about the positions they have held.


So, while you are correct that the question is "technically" without merit, I believe that it is worthy of asking on moral grounds. Better?

[PLATO]

This concludes PLATO's class on wisdom for the day. Good evening gentlemen. Looking forward to viewing more of your thoughts on this tomorrow.

[Sovereignson]

They should be euthanized

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure I understand your question? "Child support"? In what context?

Child support makes the assumption that there is continuity between the child conceived and between the child born. It's the same child that was conceived by the father, that is born of the mother. Without this assumption, child support has no legitimate basis.

It's not just 'people disagree that abortion is murder', the problem is that support for abortion doesn't square up with other laws on the books.

As I am sure you are aware, this works both ways.

Which raises the question - how does one determine what is correct? Both can't be right. One is wrong and one is right.

Empirically? Did you mean this definition "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine."

Yes, I can prove continuity between the child in the womb and the child outside of the womb. This isn't difficult either. Look at in-vitro fertilization. A mother can have her child genetically tested before and we can show that the same child born is the same child that once existed in a petri dish. This is why PIGD works - if there wasn't continuity PIGD would not work.

The second part is not relevant

It is relevant. We should base laws on what is known empirically.

However, you must realize that you cannot beat people into believing as you do.

You do realize I'm a convert, Plato?

I would like to see you show some respect for the right of people to believe differently than you.

I was on the other side. You want to know what I saw? I saw folks picketing at my university. One of the things they brought out (remember this was my side), were bedsheets.

Why? To cover pictures so that other people couldn't see them.

Is that the action of someone showing respect for other people? No, it's not. See, I believe that speech should be free even if we dislike certain forms of speech. Their actions opened my eyes and made me realize that 'my side' objected to fig leafs on genitals but wanted to blind folks on abortion.

[kentonio]

It is relevant. We should base laws on what is known empirically.

Your entire belief system is based on magic and fairies. Don't even pollute the word 'empirically' by trying to associate it with your ramblings

I was on the other side. You want to know what I saw? I saw folks picketing at my university. One of the things they brought out (remember this was my side), were bedsheets.

Why? To cover pictures so that other people couldn't see them.

Is that the action of someone showing respect for other people? No, it's not. See, I believe that speech should be free even if we dislike certain forms of speech. Their actions opened my eyes and made me realize that 'my side' objected to fig leafs on genitals but wanted to blind folks on abortion.

Showing innocent passers-by explicit surgical photos against their wishes is absolutely revolting and abhorrent. It should be no surprise that you are in favour. There is literally nothing about you that is not despicable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your entire belief system is based on magic and fairies. Don't even pollute the word 'empirically' by trying to associate it with your ramblings

Unfortunately, I'm not making that argument. I am making the argument that if you believe in child support, then you also believe human life begins at conception. One presupposes the other.

Showing innocent passers-by explicit surgical photos against their wishes is absolutely revolting and abhorrent.

So you believe we should censor things that you believe are revolting and abhorrent?

[Sava]

Who is Sava?

THE BADDEST MF'ER YOU EVER SEEN


DINGLEBERRY

[kentonio]

Unfortunately, I'm not making that argument. I am making the argument that if you believe in child support, then you also believe human life begins at conception. One presupposes the other.

You're doing what you always do and picking out little items that help support your case while ignoring the irony of you ignoring science in every other point in your life. Do you even believe in evolution for ****s sake?

So you believe we should censor things that you believe are revolting and abhorrent?

You clearly have no issues with say a group having an orgy outside a kindergarten? After all, by your logic nothing should be censored, right?

[kentonio]

DP

[Sava]

ben is such a ****ing moron

[kentonio]

..and once again Sava wins the internet.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're doing what you always do and picking out little items that help support your case while ignoring the irony of you ignoring science in every other point in your life. Do you even believe in evolution for ****s sake?

Then, you see my point. Thank you.

You clearly have no issues with say a group having an orgy outside a kindergarten? After all, by your logic nothing should be censored, right?

I asked a yes or no question, Kentonio. Do you believe that we should censor things you find abhorrent or revolting? Yes or no?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, the yes or no strawman question. Classic Ben.