Setanta wrote:I disagree--one can easily conceive of a functional society without an appeal to aesthetics.
By the way, you really need to be more careful about how you write your responses. When you wrote: The same way that I can say that someone other than me shouldn't hold up a liquor store., it can easily be interpreted as your having said you are the only person who should hold up liquor stores.
I was referring to Joe's "besides yourself."
Yeah, i know Brandon--you're never wrong. A good deal of the wrangling you get into, which leads you to accusations that people have "attacked" you and a declaration that you have "won" a discussion arises from the ineptitude with which you commonly express yourself. Too bad your pride won't let you see that.
Brandon9000 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:If all ethics are equivalent to personal esthetic tastes, then saying that you deem late-term abortions to be wrong is the equivalent to saying that you find late-term abortions to be personally distasteful. And if that's the case, how can you say that someone (besides yourself) shouldn't have a late-term abortion?
The same way that I can say that someone other than me shouldn't hold up a liquor store.
If you're expressing merely an esthetic judgment, then the statement "you shouldn't hold up that liquor store" has the same moral value as the statement "you shouldn't wear black socks with white pants." Both express nothing more than a subjective opinion on a matter of taste. To say, then, that late-term abortions are the equivalent of murder is not to say that one would be properly subject to moral condemnation either for having a late-term abortion or for committing a murder, but rather that you find both acts to be personally displeasing. That may be sufficient for you, but I don't see why anyone else should feel inclined to respect your judgment in these matters.
Well, I'm glad none of you guys were aborted.
Re: Is abortion really wrong?
Eorl wrote:Scott777ab wrote:Eorl wrote:Scott777ab wrote:material girl wrote:
So are the abortion doctors murderers or the woman having the abortion?
Both and they both should be charged with murder.
I bet you support the death penalty for mass murderers too?
You got that wrong.
I support the death penalty for any one who commits murder.
Yep thought so. You actually think you have the right to murder a girl who has an abortion....and the doctor of course !!
You really do think you should have that power! Where do you imagine that power comes from? Let me guess, a god has given it to you. You are a very dangerous bigot Scott.
No I just believe any one who commits murder should be put to death.
No if's and's or but's about it.
Re: Is abortion really wrong?
neologist wrote:Eorl wrote:Scott777ab wrote:Eorl wrote:Scott777ab wrote:material girl wrote:
So are the abortion doctors murderers or the woman having the abortion?
Both and they both should be charged with murder.
I bet you support the death penalty for mass murderers too?
You got that wrong.
I support the death penalty for any one who commits murder.
Yep thought so. You actually think you have the right to murder a girl who has an abortion....and the doctor of course !!
You really do think you should have that power! Where do you imagine that power comes from? Let me guess, a god has given it to you. You are a very dangerous bigot Scott.
I think Scott said he doesn't believe in God.
Yes I believe in God.
A god of love.
Re: Is abortion really wrong?
Terry wrote:Scott777ab wrote: I support the death penalty for any one who commits murder.
Do you support the death penalty for the person who murders by carrying out the death penalty? Where does it end?
What if the person who was executed is later found to have been innocent? Would you then have his executioner killed for murdering him?
If you believe that killing is not murder if it is done legally, note that abortion is legal in the US and is therefore NOT murder, no matter what your personal beliefs are.
Abortion will never be moral legal ever regardless of any nations laws.
Re: Is abortion really wrong?
Brandon9000 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:Scott777ab wrote:material girl wrote:
So are the abortion doctors murderers or the woman having the abortion?
Both and they both should be charged with murder.
If one believes that abortion is murder, then the woman having the abortion should be charged with being an accessory or a co-conspirator. She might even be charged with felony murder (in much the same way that the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his accomplices commit murder). Under the laws of most states, however, I'm not sure she could be charged with murder itself. I would add, however, that the only logically consistent position for those who believe that abortions is the equivalent of murder is to hold (as
Scott777ab holds) that the abortionist
and the woman should be charged for their roles in the crime.
False. One cannot charge someone under the law with a murder which is legal where it occurs.
Abortion is one of the major things that is wrong with the US Right now.
You are full of "interesting" contradictions Scott.
A "god of love" that allows you to kill people who break your moral laws?
neologist wrote:Has anybody even considered asking the fetus? After all, he/she would seem to have the most significant interest in the decision.
Thank you very much Neo.
Why not ask the fetus frist before aborting it.
O yeah it can't speak up for itself.
Well I guess I WILL.
ABORTION IS MURDER.
AND ANY WHO COMMIT ABORTION COMMIT MURDER.
Setanta wrote:neologist wrote:Has anybody even considered asking the fetus? After all, he/she would seem to have the most significant interest in the decision.
OK, I know you will say the fetus has not developed language; but couldn't you allow a reasonable amount of time for him/her to articulate an answer?
Say 18 years or so?
Such a position might be more plausible if those who oppose all abortions were willing to undertake the financial burden of the support of the resultant child in cases of immature or indigent mothers.
The mother CAN ALWAYS put the baby up for adoption.
Eorl wrote:You are full of "interesting" contradictions Scott.
A "god of love" that allows you to kill people who break your moral laws?
Like I said before.
I believe God is paradox.
Scott777ab wrote:
The mother CAN ALWAYS put the baby up for adoption.
If only someone had thought of that before !!!
Scott, you really need to go away and think about this stuff. Just spouting stupid rhetoric isn't convincing anybody of anything.
First of all, you need to realise that just because you believe something, that doesn't mean everybody else has to share them, or obey your orders.
Long time suffering in a lot of ways, including with adoption.
Not that that is some kind of debate point.
Scott seems idealistic and unseasoned by the throes of circumstance or reason, to me. And yes, dangerous, in that I can just see him as a guy with a virtual knife to many women, without a tether of empathy, But maybe that is either how he was raised, or where he's run to from the mode in which he was raised.
All I really have to say is that the violence implied in the posts is scary, and, Scott, for your own sake, I'd like to see you get counselling for that.. not to turn and agree with anything I say, but to deal with your violent sensibility, whatever point of view you have.
blacksmithn wrote:real life wrote:blacksmithn wrote:real life wrote:blacksmithn wrote:The question of viability is really a MEDICAL one, more so than a legal or legislative one, it seems to me.
That's medical, as in between a woman and her doctor. Not as in between you, me, or anybody else. The choice for a woman is agonizing enough without getting politicians or Religious Yahoo Know-Nothings involved.
Not claiming to be a doctor, nor some hyped up pseudo-religious zealot either, I'm content to leave that decision where it can best be determined.
OK, so if the gestational period from conception to birth is 38 weeks, are you comfortable with abortion at 37 weeks and 6 days if a woman can find a 'medical professional' to rid her of the inconvenience, even though you seem to admit that a human life has begun by then?
Oh, please. Couldn't you find a more extreme and unreasonable example?
At 37 weeks, 6 days it would seem to me, albeit I'm no doctor, that the fetus is viable by almost any definition. Conversely, at 6 days the embryo is almost certainly NOT viable. So what?
That being said and given the current parameters of the law, I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. It's not my decision as it's not my body. Nor is it yours.
It would be an unreasonable example, if babies of 37 weeks gestation were not aborted. But they are.
Sure, in less than 1% of all abortions. And, some 36 states have laws against such late-term procedures. To repeat, GIVEN THE CURRENT PARAMETERS OF THE LAW I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?
So if abortion is legal up to the point of birth, (and it was in the entire USA for years with the blessing of the liberals of the political left, AND it still is legal in some places,) you are content to let 'the current parameters of the law' stand, thus denying protection to viable human beings?
YES.
You don't seem to be able to decide whether the medical facts of life should determine the legal availability of abortion.
"Medical facts of life?" I'm not sure what you mean by this phrase. Since medical professionals apparently have trouble defining at what point an abortion becomes "late term", which is the procedure it seems that you're all wrought up about, I'm certainly in no position to state definitively that this procedure is right but that is wrong.
Even if the unborn at a given point is clearly a living human by any reasonable medical standard, you still seem to back away from agreeing that elective abortion should not be a legal option at that point.
To repeat yet again, GIVEN THE CURRENT PARAMETERS OF THE LAW I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor.
Is there any point in the pregnancy at which you will state without equivocation that abortion should be illegal (I am assuming an exception in those few rare cases to save the life of the mother)?
Since, as I have repeatedly stated, I'm no doctor, I'm in no position to judge. Once again, given the current parameters of the law, that is a decision best left to the mother and the doctor.
Your contradictory positions on this are indications of a political bias, not a rational position.
Perhaps you should turn off the TV and think about this for a while.
How can you morally justify exterminating those that you acknowledge are living human beings? Just because they are only '1%' of the abortions performed?
Do you know how many deaths that is?
Need I say that 1 is too many?
ossobuco wrote:Long time suffering in a lot of ways, including with adoption.
Not that that is some kind of debate point.
Scott seems idealistic and unseasoned by the throes of circumstance or reason, to me. And yes, dangerous, in that I can just see him as a guy with a virtual knife to many women, without a tether of empathy, But maybe that is either how he was raised, or where he's run to from the mode in which he was raised.
All I really have to say is that the violence implied in the posts is scary, and, Scott, for your own sake, I'd like to see you get counselling for that.. not to turn and agree with anything I say, but to deal with your violent sensibility, whatever point of view you have.
MY VIOLENCE pfft what about the EVIL WOMAN who commit MURDER.
Not just MURDER but 1st DEGREE MURDER.
They think about it, then do it.
That is premediated MURDER.
And for that they should be put to death.
It is MORALLY SANE and MORALLY JUST to put to death all MURDERS.
Okay, thanks. Although I'm not a medical doctor, you're clearly a deranged lunatic. Good luck with the pogrom.
Scott777ab wrote:
It is MORALLY SANE and MORALLY JUST to put to death all MURDERS.
Why is the absurdity of that statement not obvious to you?
Please add to your list of achievements...
Declared by Eorl...."not very bright"
All the good ad homs were already taken.
