Quote:

---

Expound on graph one please because I am critiquing the process (to my understanding of it): you evaluate worth based on your ability to empathize, no? Or something's ability to demonstrate a requisite level of intelligence or functioning? Is that not the process per your last few paragraphs?

---

Yes, both. Empathy is based on what the thing is.

Quote:

---

Since you don't see the connection to eugenics, what gives you comfort that you have the ability to adequately discern what does and doesn't have value? I mean I'm sure a sociopath would say the same thing (just can't empathize with others) yet you're not a sociopath. However you feel the ability to confidently express what is and isn't of worth based on arbitrary standards (brain activity at a certain level, ability to be independent, etc.). Where does that come from? And where does it lead?

---

I think that's a good question. I'm only making declarations about things which I'm confident do not have any sort of cognition or any of the properties I care about. In other words, I think my stance is extremely cautious. I don't feel comfortable talking about when consciousness emerges or anything like that. Once the hardware is present I'm much less certain. I'm afraid of the gray area, so I don't go there. That's why I mostly talk about zygotes and early embryos, not fetuses.

You misinterpreted my position a bit in the last part of your post. I don't think the distinctions I'm making are arbitrary. I'm explicitly declining to evaluate the part which is arbitrary (where consciousness emerges), because I'm afraid to make a mistake. I think there is a period where it's clearly fine to kill an embryo, then a gray area, then a period where it's clearly not fine.

Quote:

---

Banning incest doesn't fall under the traditional eugenics umbrella. Tying quality of life to worthiness to live definitely does though, as you're not the person living the life. What gives you the confidence to say that someone with a genetic disease has no desire to be born and live with it? I know people who died in their 40s and 50s from ALS that had families and children and enjoyed their life, despite how it ended. I think (and hope) life experience will change your outlook on this. There is more to living than not having health problems or being unwanted by a parent.

---

Eugenics is "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable". Disallowing relatives from reproducing fits this and is therefore eugenics.

This part contains major misunderstandings, which again hinges on whether my position is arbitrary. I am confident that a zygote has no desires at all, including being born in a particular state. I think discarding defective zygotes is morally equivalent to discarding defective sperm. No big deal. Maybe the sperm want to find the egg. Maybe the zygote wants to develop. Maybe coronavirus loves killing. I can't say for sure, but I'm comfortable discounting these possibilities.

The other assumption I'm making is that disabilities are bad, and it would be better if people didn't have them. I'm willing to defend this contention.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

---

Obviously, but you can't shut up a baby someone carried to term can you?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I don't think a fetus has personhood.

---

why not?

honest question.

---

Quote:

---

Because it's not a physically or mentally developed person capable of any independent survival.

---

Neither is a one month old, and neither is someone in a coma, or in any other of a number of injuries.

Quote:

---

A fetus is alive in the same sense that any other cell in our body is alive (including the sperm and egg) and we accord cells no special rights because they aren't capable of holding or fulfilling rights. My problem with the idea that "life begins at conception" is that as a scientific position it's a mess. There's no "moment" of conception, it's a rather long process, nor is life magically formed from non-living material. Instead, it's when two cells go from 23 unique chromosomes (no sperm and no egg are carrying exact copies of the parent's DNA) to 46 unique chromosomes. To reduce personhood to a set of DNA seems especially problematic (why not the sperm and egg?) and remarkably reductive.

---

Here you give it away though. It has its own unique DNA. It is unlike any other cell in the mother's body, and unlike any cell in the father's body. This is a new, unique person. Compared to the rest of this person's life, it is a "moment". There has even been a recording of a tiny flash of light at the moment of conception. (see video)

Quote:

---

Now, when a fetus reaches a point of viability, I'd say the calculus changes. Though there's still the life of the mother to consider, and must be given at least equal weight to the child, such that abortion may be justified after viability in rare cases.

---

So, "conception" is "a long process", but you're willing to stake ground at "viability". Do you not see that "viability" is a much broader time and varying circumstances than conception. Talk about a "mess". When an individual's "personhood" is dependent upon how close they are to a hospital, or the medical expertise of the nearest hospital, as well as many other circumstances relating to the individual and its mother, now we're talking about a real mess.

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

---

Obviously, but you can't shut up a baby someone carried to term can you?

---

Why would that stop them from doing anything? Those people don't value the woman or the baby.

Nothing can survive independently. All definitions of life are arbitrary.

I'd like to formally call BS on the flash of light thing. I'm not going to watch that video, but 2 seconds of googling suggests that it's a fluorophore used to detect zinc and calcium flux.

File5 said:

---

So there's the chasm we must cross. When is it murder?, Don't know how to convince you of my view, and you definitely can't convince me of yours.

As this is the R & P forum, I believe God looks on abortion as an abomination. Of course I don't expect that to have an effect on you, and the argument goes to intent - if you don't think it's murder, how can God hold you accountable? I suppose I'm playing it safe here, Pascals Theorem applied to babies.

As for your charity comments, don't know what to tell you but that more government is not the answer to all the world's ills. Your comments undermine all the work that Christians do every day with the tap of a few keys. Maybe if government didn't try to solve everything with our dollars, we could us those dollars to do more things in our own communities.

I disagree with your statement about inverse proportion, but it's kind of interesting - I think needs go up proportionally to government involvement via the entitlement state - ergo, the more government involvement, the greater the charity required to address the issues caused BY the government.

---

How do you know this?

dermdoc said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Again with all due respect, they can still get an bottom until the heartbeat which I believe is six months, correct?

However horrid rape is, that is not what this is about.

This is about limiting abortion for convenience which is the vast majority of abortions. And consensual sex not rape.

---

Because of how extreme the new law is, yes it absolutely is about these extreme circumstances. Rape, incest, fetal deformities where the mother knows the baby wont survive outside the womb. Extreme situations that no one ever wants to be put in, that cause a world of pain for the mother. This is why I believe abortion should be legal. And it's why I think laws that completely disregard these situations and add to the pain, are evil.

Yes I am aware people get abortions for convenience. If you don't like that, fine. I don't like it either. But I have read up enough on this to know that making them self-administer illegal abortions isn't the answer either. I have always advocated for solutions that actually lower unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions, such as comprehensive education and wider access to contraceptives that have PROVEN to work in other states and countries that have taken that approach.

But for some reason we keep harping on making abortion illegal, which when it all boils down to it just makes it illegal for low income women. Rich Republican men will always find a way to get their girlfriends, wives, and mistresses an abortion.

---

Really man. Bad bull.

There are so many straw men in your post it is difficult to discuss. We have rape victims and congenital problems which are a minuscule part of the abortion equation as you know.

Then the "rich, Republican card? C'mon man. No need for stooping to this kind of caricature.

It all comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder as I do. If you do not think it is murder then everything becomes relative.

---

I don't believe in abortion but his point about the wealthy still having the means to do it is valid (Dem, Repub, whatever). It was that way before R v W. People will still get them if their personal self interest exceeds their morality. It moves it out of Texas but the moral choice/option will always be an individual one

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

---

Obviously, but you can't shut up a baby someone carried to term can you?

---

Why would that stop them from doing anything? Those people don't value the woman or the baby.

---

Your logic is 'why make bad things harder?' That's what you're arguing right now. My question is why make bad things easier?

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

---

Obviously, but you can't shut up a baby someone carried to term can you?

---

Why would that stop them from doing anything? Those people don't value the woman or the baby.

---

Your logic is 'why make bad things harder?' That's what you're arguing right now. My question is why make bad things easier?

---

Okay. Let's take away all gun ownership. That would make bad things much harder.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

---

Obviously, but you can't shut up a baby someone carried to term can you?

---

Why would that stop them from doing anything? Those people don't value the woman or the baby.

---

Your logic is 'why make bad things harder?' That's what you're arguing right now. My question is why make bad things easier?

---

Okay. Let's take away all gun ownership. That would make bad things much harder.

---

This does not pertain to the point being discussed. Legal abortion protects abusers and keeps them from getting caught for far too long. We're talking about the definition of voiceless people here. Don't make it easier to abuse them.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

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

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.

---

You don't have to kill someone with a gun to shut them up. It's a weapon and a threat. Again, illegal abortion would change nothing.

---

Obviously, but you can't shut up a baby someone carried to term can you?

---

Why would that stop them from doing anything? Those people don't value the woman or the baby.

---

Your logic is 'why make bad things harder?' That's what you're arguing right now. My question is why make bad things easier?

---

Okay. Let's take away all gun ownership. That would make bad things much harder.

---

This does not pertain to the point being discussed. Legal abortion protects abusers and keeps them from getting caught for far too long. We're talking about the definition of voiceless people here. Don't make it easier to abuse them.

---

No it doesn't. Period. Far less than legal handgun ownership makes it easier to commit crime and keep vulnerable people scared and in line.

Zobel said:

---

Zero upside to the killing of the unborn.

---

There's obviously an upside to the person getting an abortion, otherwise they wouldn't be getting an abortion.

Zero upside on a net event basis. There are uses for firearms beyond criminal activity. There is no case abortion beyond the killing of an unborn child.

Zobel said:

---

Zero upside on a net event basis.

---

I don't know what this means.

Murder has an upside for the murderer. Theft has an upside for the thief. But there are two parties involved. There is no net upside to murder or theft.

There is no net upside for an abortion. There are two parties involved.

Zobel said:

---

Murder has an upside for the murderer. Theft has an upside for the thief. But there are two parties involved. There is no net upside to murder or theft.

There is no net upside for an abortion. There are two parties involved.

---

If those two parties are weighted equally, sure, but that's part of what's in question.

The reason I objected is because that is precisely not the argument sapper was making. He was drawing a conclusion based upon the implication all firearm use is criminal or a net negative.

What's got human dna and a heartbeat? Child murderers say "well how old is it?"

Zobel said:

---

What's got human dna and a heartbeat? Child murderers say "well how old is it?"

---

I'm curious, what is it about a heartbeat that you guys find so compelling?

I'm curious what else it could possibly be if not a unique, distinct human?

People being super specific say well other human dna could be unique and not a person. Fine, we can argue that point. But what's the objection now? If it is not a human, what is it?

Zobel said:

---

Zero upside on a net event basis. There are uses for firearms beyond criminal activity. There is no case abortion beyond the killing of an unborn child.

---

I'm guessing you've never listened to a woman who needed one.

Zobel said:

---

I'm curious what else it could possibly be if not a unique, distinct human?

People being super specific say well other human dna could be unique and not a person. Fine, we can argue that point. But what's the objection now? If it is not a human, what is it?

---

I agree it's a human, and for the last few years I've been generally pro-life (though I doubt people on either side would find my particular line of reasoning compelling).

But I still don't get the heartbeat thing.

Great. Now do hit men.

Zobel said:

---

What's got human dna and a heartbeat?

---

I know this one!

The human heart.

Fair enough. Now make a case for stopping a beating human heart that's not murder without special pleading.

Zobel said:

---

Fair enough. Now make a case for stopping a beating human heart that's not murder without special pleading.

---

War
Executions
Self Defense....

......Abortion ???

I don't know what special pleading is. I'm assuming special pleading is whatever I end up saying. I'll give you 4 examples.

1: you've removed a heart from a cadaver, which is still beating. You don't supply it with the electrolyte solution and electric impulse it needs to continue, because that would be a waste of time.

2: you're doing a heart transplant. You take out the heart of the patient and throw it in the garbage, because it's just a regular organ which has as much to do with personhood as does the gall bladder.

3: A patient is brain dead. You pull the plug because being brain dead is irreversible, and that is the organ that matters.

4. You've created a heart organoid, and you cause it to beat for some experiment. You then throw it in the garbage and go home, since your experiment is concluded.

WGAS about the heart or the lung or the bones. It's all about the nervous system.

For one, those aren't special pleading. We have clearly reasoned and codified understanding for these things. The reason abortion is challenged is because it doesn't fit any of these categories, and indeed the legal status of the child as a person changes based solely on the opinion of the mother. It's asinine.

The other thing is that there are essentially only two underlying things in those two - one is the state acting, not the individual, the other is a reaction against an action which the aggressor has forfeited the protection of the state with regard to their right to life. In both cases we have more or less state sanctioned killing.

The argument about abortion is not centered there, unless we're going to grant that it is indeed a killing. I'm happy to start there.

I also think all killing is wrong in a universal sense and is a form of evil, state sanctioned or not.

You don't swat flies? You wouldn't take chemo? You don't take antibiotics, or get warts removed?

I think there's a specific type of killing you don't like, and the borders of that are arbitrary.

Special pleading is making an exception to a rule without any justification for that exception.

I'd say that you are not engaging in special pleading here, because you're making a case for the exception.

But you're right, I phrased the argument poorly. The reason the heartbeat matters is because it is a necessary requirement for the continuance of a unique human life. It is not the only one.

In call cases here you're establishing a rationale for cessation of a human heartbeat when that does not preclude the continuance of a unique human life. In case 1 the life has already ended. In case 2, you've made a provision to prevent the life from ending - indeed, the whole reason to end the first heartbeat is to save a life.

Case 3 is interesting because we recognize that even with the brain death, the person is still alive as long as their heart beats in Texas. However, we also recognize the irreversibility of that, and we have made provisions for handling it (DNR, family wishes, etc). At any rate, you've invoked a form of prior death, so this is more or less another version of case 1.

Case 4 there's no life preceding, there can be no life after, it has no correlated life whatsoever.

Bleh you're being pedantic, I'm talking about the killing of humans, and I didn't think that was necessary to specify.

When I say life, I'm talking about anything which is alive. I wouldn't say "a life". I don't think that's a meaningful statement. All life is made of cells. A cell is the only discrete living unit which can be concretely defined in space (not time) in a non arbitrary way. Multicellular organisms are not indivisible units of life, and they are technically many lives, not one. This isn't usually very useful information, but it is in this case.

You and I are a bunch of cells. They're all unique. They're all human (which itself is technically an arbitrary concept, but the edge cases don't really occur often enough for it to be a problem). Which ones do we care about? We don't care about all of them. Some of your cells may split off and fuse with someone else's. That makes a new cell, which is more unique than most others for a little while.

Why is uniqueness important? Why should I care? How unique does it have to be?

You would probably describe all this as technicality, but I don't think it is. I think we describe the world in ways that work pretty well, but this is an edge case. There is no reason to care about a single isolated cell.

Of course everything here is true but it isn't very useful. It's not that dissimilar from the myth of solid objects. They're not but it is helpful to assume they are. I'm ok if we refer to it as the myth of a unique life, or just "a life" in short hand, because it's a useful model with which to interact with reality.

There is a point where you can draw a circle around a set of living things and assign them with a new and distinct category of life. And, there's also a point where you can clearly denote that unique instance beginning and ending. A tree, a human, a fly. These are the tools of this discussion.