larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

Oh it makes perfect sense.

"It's ok to kill a child in the first trimester because I want it to be ok."

Edit for hilarious typo

kurt vonnegut said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.

I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?

---

I believe that forcefully inflicting one's opinion on "good" and "bad" is a bad thing. I understand your concept, but its simplistic to the point of being stupid.

---

Are you saying that you don't believe in objective moral truth?

You have to demonstrate that abortion is something which is bad (even if you're objectively right, it doesn't matter if you can't convince others).

So far people are unconvinced.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

Oh it makes perfect sense.

"It's ok to kill a child in the first trimester because I want it to be ok."

Edit for hilarious typo

---

I suspect you roll your eyes when the more aggressive pro-gun control folks use language such as 'you don't care that our kids are getting slaughtered in schools'.


YOu realize you are using the same hyperbolic language here? I first trimester termination is not killing a child.

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

Oh it makes perfect sense.

"It's ok to kill a child in the first trimester because I want it to be ok."

Edit for hilarious typo

---

I suspect you roll your eyes when the more aggressive pro-gun control folks use language such as 'you don't care that our kids are getting slaughtered in schools'.


YOu realize you are using the same hyperbolic language here? I first trimester termination is not killing a child.

---

Then what is it, exactly?

Dilettante said:

---

You have to demonstrate that abortion is something which is bad (even if you're objectively right, it doesn't matter if you can't convince others).

So far people are unconvinced.

---

we can't even have this conversation, because then we'd have to agree to a definition of what "bad" is

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

Oh it makes perfect sense.

"It's ok to kill a child in the first trimester because I want it to be ok."

Edit for hilarious typo

---

I suspect you roll your eyes when the more aggressive pro-gun control folks use language such as 'you don't care that our kids are getting slaughtered in schools'.


YOu realize you are using the same hyperbolic language here? I first trimester termination is not killing a child.

---

Then what is it, exactly?

---

Its the termination of a pregnancy

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

Oh it makes perfect sense.

"It's ok to kill a child in the first trimester because I want it to be ok."

Edit for hilarious typo

---

I suspect you roll your eyes when the more aggressive pro-gun control folks use language such as 'you don't care that our kids are getting slaughtered in schools'.


YOu realize you are using the same hyperbolic language here? I first trimester termination is not killing a child.

---

is euthanasia killing? Trying to determine whether or not you decide if something is "killing" if it has a euphemism

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

Oh it makes perfect sense.

"It's ok to kill a child in the first trimester because I want it to be ok."

Edit for hilarious typo

---

I suspect you roll your eyes when the more aggressive pro-gun control folks use language such as 'you don't care that our kids are getting slaughtered in schools'.


YOu realize you are using the same hyperbolic language here? I first trimester termination is not killing a child.

---

is euthanasia killing? Trying to determine whether or not you decide if something is "killing" if it has a euphemism

---

sometimes mercy killing is a term used instead of euthanasia. I think most folks don't think in terms of 'killing' thier 16 year old dog that has cancer when they take him to the vet to say goodbye.

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

That's something only a birthed fetus could say!

Edit: This debate always reminds me of the TNG episode where humans are called ugly giant bags of mostly water.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.

I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?

---

I believe that forcefully inflicting one's opinion on "good" and "bad" is a bad thing. I understand your concept, but its simplistic to the point of being stupid.

---

Are you saying that you don't believe in objective moral truth?

---

I do not.

And as I've made it clear on other threads: Even if objective moral truth exists, you have no objective lens by which to view it or understand it.

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

It's a semantic game of euphemisms. This is always the nature of propaganda. It's wrong to kill people, but if you change the words "kill" and you don't consider the people "people" it becomes a lot easier.

It's a lot easier to terminate a fetus than it is to kill a baby
It's a lot easier to cleanse the population than it is to kill all the minorities

When the Japanese are "nips" they're easier to kill, same with Arabs who become "ragheads" and jews who become "****s"

---

But it's not a baby yet. It will be if it's carried to term.

The word killing seems correct, since it's ending life. The world child, baby, etc. are poorly defined as far as I know. If we define them certain ways, then they apply. If we define them other ways, they don't. It doesn't matter.

The question is whether it's wrong to kill the first trimester baby/fetus/child/embryo/offspring thing. The word doesn't change the situation.

We all agree it's wrong to kill people. Why? For non-Christians the answer probably has something to do with empathy and compassion. Would we want to be killed? No, therefore don't kill others. Easy enough. (it's more complicated when dealing with edge cases, but I don't think the other edge cases are relevant here. Maybe y'all disagree. I think the following doesn't apply to people with temporary mental defects or permanent mental defects, unless all brain function has ceased. Then they're dead as far as I'm concerned)

Does that apply to a first trimester fetus? In my opinion it doesn't apply in the early stages, as I have less empathy for a zygote than a fly. If I find some reason to believe the zygote cares what happens to it in a way that exceeds that of a fly, then I'll care more about it. As the zygote grows and develops, it becomes something more responsive and more likely to care in some complicated way what happens to it. So I'm more willing to try to protect it.

For me, the only way I'm going to care about the embryo is if I think there's a chance the embryo cares about itself in some emergent way. As far as I know, that takes networks of neurons, so the development of the nervous system is what I'd pay attention to if I was going to draw the line. I don't care about uniqueness or potential.

craigernaught said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

I've gone back and forth on this particular issue so many times.

---

I don't trust people who don't struggle on this issue and are absolutists.

---

Fair enough.

Even my liberal lawyer friends will admit that Roe v Wade was one of the worst SC case laws in history.

A far left SC invented a "right" that is not in the Constitution.

And because of that, people think that the "right" to an abortion is in the Constitution and a Constitutional right. It is not.

The best legal way would be for state legislatures to legislate state by state what their voters wanted.

But as usual, the left was not happy with that because they wanted it to apply to every state, I.e. against the will of their voters.

We should never have been in this place.

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

It's a semantic game of euphemisms. This is always the nature of propaganda. It's wrong to kill people, but if you change the words "kill" and you don't consider the people "people" it becomes a lot easier.

It's a lot easier to terminate a fetus than it is to kill a baby
It's a lot easier to cleanse the population than it is to kill all the minorities

When the Japanese are "nips" they're easier to kill, same with Arabs who become "ragheads" and jews who become "****s"

---

But it's not a baby yet. It will be if it's carried to term.

---

Are you a fully developed / mature carried to term fetus?

The fetal stage ends at birth.

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

It's a semantic game of euphemisms. This is always the nature of propaganda. It's wrong to kill people, but if you change the words "kill" and you don't consider the people "people" it becomes a lot easier.

It's a lot easier to terminate a fetus than it is to kill a baby
It's a lot easier to cleanse the population than it is to kill all the minorities

When the Japanese are "nips" they're easier to kill, same with Arabs who become "ragheads" and jews who become "****s"

---

But it's not a baby yet. It will be if it's carried to term.

---

okay to kill at 8 months?

Dilettante said:

---

The word killing seems correct, since it's ending life. The world child, baby, etc. are poorly defined as far as I know. If we define them certain ways, then they apply. If we define them other ways, they don't. It doesn't matter.

The question is whether it's wrong to kill the first trimester baby/fetus/child/embryo/offspring thing. The word doesn't change the situation.

We all agree it's wrong to kill people. Why? For non-Christians the answer probably has something to do with empathy and compassion. Would we want to be killed? No, therefore don't kill others. Easy enough. (it's more complicated when dealing with edge cases, but I don't think the other edge cases are relevant here. Maybe y'all disagree. I think the following doesn't apply to people with temporary mental defects or permanent mental defects, unless all brain function has ceased. Then they're dead as far as I'm concerned)

Does that apply to a first trimester fetus? In my opinion it doesn't apply in the early stages, as I have less empathy for a zygote than a fly. If I find some reason to believe the zygote cares what happens to it in a way that exceeds that of a fly, then I'll care more about it. As the zygote grows and develops, it becomes something more responsive and more likely to care in some complicated way what happens to it. So I'm more willing to try to protect it.

For me, the only way I'm going to care about the embryo is if I think there's a chance the embryo cares about itself in some emergent way. As far as I know, that takes networks of neurons, so the development of the nervous system is what I'd pay attention to if I was going to draw the line. I don't care about uniqueness or potential.

---

I appreciate that you wrestle with the morality of this. I think you are one of the most sincere posters here. You're trying to establish your beliefs from a blank slate.

My counterpoint would be that this path is how you wind up with eugenics. Science is not equipped to develop morality. It describes the world but not quality (stealing from pageau's podcast today). A flower isn't inherently beautiful, it requires something else to be such. Life isn't inherently valuable until you personally deem it such. That's a scary place to be.

dermdoc said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

I've gone back and forth on this particular issue so many times.

---

I don't trust people who don't struggle on this issue and are absolutists.

---

Fair enough.

Even my liberal lawyer friends will admit that Roe v Wade was one of the worst SC case laws in history.

A far left SC invented a "right" that is not in the Constitution.

And because of that, people think that the "right" to an abortion is in the Constitution and a Constitutional right. It is not.

The best legal way would be for state legislatures to legislate state by state what their voters wanted.

But as usual, the left was not happy with that because they wanted it to apply to every state, I.e. against the will of their voters.

We should never have been in this place.

---

all 'rights' are invented.

Dilettante said:

---

The fetal stage ends at birth.

---

He said a baby was a fetus carried to term. Im simply inserting his definition in for the word 'baby.'

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

It's a semantic game of euphemisms. This is always the nature of propaganda. It's wrong to kill people, but if you change the words "kill" and you don't consider the people "people" it becomes a lot easier.

It's a lot easier to terminate a fetus than it is to kill a baby
It's a lot easier to cleanse the population than it is to kill all the minorities

When the Japanese are "nips" they're easier to kill, same with Arabs who become "ragheads" and jews who become "****s"

---

But it's not a baby yet. It will be if it's carried to term.

---

okay to kill at 8 months?

---

We are still talking about ending a pregnancy, not killing a person.

I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had for late term abortions. But again, we are talking about an incredibly small number and they involve very complex medical issues. These are very difficult situations for families and need to be decided between them and their doctor.

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

It's a semantic game of euphemisms. This is always the nature of propaganda. It's wrong to kill people, but if you change the words "kill" and you don't consider the people "people" it becomes a lot easier.

It's a lot easier to terminate a fetus than it is to kill a baby
It's a lot easier to cleanse the population than it is to kill all the minorities

When the Japanese are "nips" they're easier to kill, same with Arabs who become "ragheads" and jews who become "****s"

---

But it's not a baby yet. It will be if it's carried to term.

---

okay to kill at 8 months?

---

We are still talking about ending a pregnancy, not killing a person.

I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had for late term abortions. But again, we are talking about an incredibly small number and they involve very complex medical issues. These are very difficult situations for families and need to be decided between them and their doctor.

---

Again you're only saying that because you're using another euphemism. It's about killing a person. I actually liked what dilettante said about words being imperfect descriptors, because you know what the action is and who the entity is.

But it is NOT a person yet. you are the one using words that mean something else.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

I've gone back and forth on this particular issue so many times.

---

I don't trust people who don't struggle on this issue and are absolutists.

---

Fair enough.

Even my liberal lawyer friends will admit that Roe v Wade was one of the worst SC case laws in history.

A far left SC invented a "right" that is not in the Constitution.

And because of that, people think that the "right" to an abortion is in the Constitution and a Constitutional right. It is not.

The best legal way would be for state legislatures to legislate state by state what their voters wanted.

But as usual, the left was not happy with that because they wanted it to apply to every state, I.e. against the will of their voters.

We should never have been in this place.

---

all 'rights' are invented.

---

Not the way this "right" was.

Should have been left to the states.

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

But do not make voters who are violently opposed and think it is murder to it pay for it through their taxes. And yes, PP uses tax dollars as they do not have separate abortion facilities and personnel.

And no other "right" or medical procedure involves ending a life or potential to a life.

And a fly vs a zygote? A potential human vs a fly?

Wow

First, I don't think it's right to judge the validity of a thought process based on how much you like the conclusions. We do it anyway, of course, but "this is how you end up with eugenics" is not the type of claim that has the potential to convince me I've said something wrong.

Second, I don't think what I wrote has very much to do with eugenics. I just don't see the connection. You're right that subjectivity has scary potentials. But that's the world we live in, as far as I can tell.

Second point first blood part 2, I'm not against everything covered by the term eugenics. I think the ban on incest is a eugenic policy, and I support it. I'm also a big fan of trying to correct genetic diseases in individuals, and of embryo screening for IVF. I'm not a fan of some other things which fall under the eugenics umbrella.

Maybe I should have used something simpler than a fly. I was thinking of saying sea sponge.

I'm trying to get across how little I care about zygotes. I could not care less. I think I've communicated that effectively. I assign 0 value to potential.

The 'right' for black kids to go to school with white kids was decided in the SC is a similar 'way'. Is it equally objectionable that states were not permitted to decide which color of human being to treat like human beings? If Supreme Court decisions are ignorable or if their decisions represent Ignorable results, why have the Supreme Court to begin with.

The issue of tax money for abortion is another argument entirely. I object to the billions of dollars of PPP dollars were gobbled up by tax exempt Christian organizations too. Money going to places you don't like is not avoidable.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What began the unbroken chain of events that brought that unique child into the world?

---

The big bang

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

yeah, this is a pretty terrible stance for a professed Christian to take.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.