Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Raw Story: GOP Senate nominee: Women don’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ rapes

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the two.

They don't match up very well.

Unless you're referring to specifically targeting someone that you know is innocent.

Ack. Did I not say many think the "stretch" thing? Did you just need to demonstrate it and add nothing else? And per your last sentence--then it's not collateral damage. Think. And you're wrong. They match up very well. And I will explain (again) how, though it really doesn't take that much intellect.

Maybe a quick attempt now.

So I have a larger military intervention that I justify---we are attacking an enemy (often debatable in relation to our moral "murder" definitions right there, like in Vietnam or Iraq, given many contexts such attacks occur in, but I won't go into that now). Now we know, understand, and accept that innocent children (to be specific) are going to be killed in a certain strike even though we MAY do our best to avoid such to whatever we can and still achieve our strategic objective.

But even knowing it is going to happen, we justify it and those justifications are accepted.

And already-living, breathing, innocent totally undeniable human being life-forms---children often---are killed, "being in the wrong place at the wrong time." And it happens ever since our wars began, and will continue.

But we, including many Christians against any form of abortion, "explain" (justify) why the tragedy is morally acceptable.

I sadly accept both collateral damage and some abortions (among other socially sanctioned killing), but then I really am being logical and consistent, even while feeling the painful emotions of remorse and regret, and the want for things to change for the better in all these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
We keep coming back to the word morality and I really don't think it applies here in the manner it's commonly used. This isn't about having sex before marriage or stealing something from the super market. The ProLife side of the fence views abortion as murdering babies, literally. There is no one that would seriously consider the government not enforcing laws that prohibit the murder of one's own children.

This is why IMO the issue here is not really a moral one. No one debates the morality of murder. The issue here is simply, when does a human being come into existence as such.

I don't agree with that. I believe that life begins at (or shortly after) conception, and I personally would not encourage an abortion because I believe it to be a sin. But I am pro-choice, and I don't think the government should treat abortion the same as murder.

Even if I believe that the abortion is just as bad as murdering a child, I still need to think about the practicalities of enforcement. Laws need to be structured in a way that accounts for reality.

Why do we have different punishments for crimes? There is no real moral accounting method that defines the severity of crimes. We structure punishments based on the incentives they give to potential criminals and on time necessary for rehabilitation. This is a very practical consideration, and we can't just dissociate morality from reality.

Consider the issue of suicide. Suicide is a sin, and everyone would agree that it is an immoral killing. But making it illegal, or jailing people who attempt suicide, is going to do very little to actually reduce the number of suicides. And it may actually encourage people to do the wrong thing (to actually commit suicide) rather than attempt suicide as a cry for help. Counseling is more effective than punishment in policing morality in the context of suicide.

On the other hand, criminalizing murder and enacting harsh punishments really will deter people from committing murder. Criminals who are robbing a bank for financial gain will avoid committing murders because of the punishment. Punishment is clearly the best method to police morality in the context of murder.

Abortion falls somewhere in between. A woman can be pregnant and get an abortion early in the pregnancy without anyone else knowing, and this makes enforcement difficult and punishment ineffective. (Incidentally, this is another reason why criminalizing late-term abortions makes more sense, because they are difficult to hide). Punishment will certainly deter some women, but it will also drive many to an inevitable underground market.

As I say above, my legal position on abortion is that the state is simply prohibited from infringing on the rights of individual women, but I think that there are a lot of practical considerations that matter, even if you start from the standpoint of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
I expect nothing less from you big guy. Love you too. ;)

Hey, you can "expect" what you want, I am hardly one-dimensional, and you know I give you a ton of affection (and respect when I see it merited) over the years, but I also will call you on what you write in manners I feel appropriate, and within the rules (and take a moment to note the phrase I specifically underlined---it was obviously for a considered reason).

On that note, i was going to tell you to watch for things like simply saying "you're a cold person, larry" (couldn't find the post--busy--trying to multi-task (right :pfft:) per forum rule. Hopefully, you still get the difference between a post I made to you, and a comment like that (though Im sure you don't really think larry is "a cold person"). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
Here's the hole in that reasoning: when is the last time a 1 year old was left to sustain him/herself and survived on its own?
Whenever a neighbor reports the child to social services, and the government takes custody of the child.

I think there is a dividing line between the government and the individual that changes at birth (or at some time prior to birth), when people other than the mother acquire the ability to take the child and raise it separate from the mother. Before that point, the mother's womb is the only thing that can keep the baby alive. But once third parties can take the child and sustain it, I think the state has a clear interest, and abortion should be illegal from that point on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted
Ack. Did I not say many think the "stretch" thing? Did you just need to demonstrate it and add nothing else? And per your last sentence--then it's not collateral damage. Think. And you're wrong. They match up very well. And I will explain (again) how, though it really doesn't take that much intellect.

Maybe a quick attempt now.

So I have a larger military intervention that I justify---we are attacking an enemy (often debatable in relation to our moral "murder" definitions right there, like in Vietnam or Iraq, given many contexts such attacks occur in, but I won't go into that now). Now we know, understand, and accept that innocent children (to be specific) are going to be killed in a certain strike even though we MAY do our best to avoid such to whatever we can and still achieve our strategic objective.

But even knowing it is going to happen, we justify it and those justifications are accepted.

And already-living, breathing, innocent totally undeniable human being life-forms---children often---are killed, "being in the wrong place at the wrong time." And it happens ever since our wars began, and will continue.

But we, including many Christians against any form of abortion, "explain" (justify) why the tragedy is morally acceptable.

I sadly accept both collateral damage and some abortions (among other socially sanctioned killing), but then I really am being logical and consistent, even while feeling the painful emotions of remorse and regret, and the want for things to change for the better in all these matters.

So the two are similar in that if we accept them (abortion and war) we accept that innocent life will be taken.

I guess that makes sense. It just seems like a complicated/messy comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CTskins

CTskins

Posted
Posted
Are you suggesting there should be an abortion counterpart to the Just War Theory?

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 12:39 PM ----------

I expect nothing less from you big guy. Love you too. ;)

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 12:41 PM ----------

Here's the hole in that reasoning: when is the last time a 1 year old was left to sustain him/herself and survived on its own?

You misunderstood what I said.

Self sustaining = all organs are developed to the point where it does not require a host to feed, breathe, or otherwise help develop. It's about organ development, not survival instincts. Very big difference. Here's an example. My son was born at 37 weeks. He was/is able to fully develop without the help of my wife's internal organs. I believe the term is fetal viability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
So the two are similar in that if we accept them (abortion and war) we accept that innocent life will be taken.

I guess that makes sense. It just seems like a complicated/messy comparison to use.

I salute your ability to "listen", vis. You do that well and always have. ;)

You have the main gist well enough, though the line of thought begs for much examination and expansion (how we justify and judge).

I think two excellent words to use in all these topics, particularly abortion, are "complicated" and "messy."

In some ways, calling abortion murder (as a blanket assignation) and everyone who is against a ban on all abortions "murderers" (however subtly or not that theme is worked) can have a (debatable) purpose, yet to me can also be even worse than calling Vietnam vets baby killers (Gulf vets are heros now, so that has mainly changed).

I will go back to reading, other than to say excellent and thoughtful posts DjTj.....and just mod-wise....

...I want folks to get their views out and have their say...but at some point I hope we will wind down the basic abortion debate in and of itself so this does not "just" become another abortion thread only. Just do your best. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted

Life does not begin at conceptiion. Life began a long time ago and it continues.

Conception is special - it is a point when a new unique combination of human generic material is created.

How come destroying a cluster of cells which are fundamentally unaware of their own existence and cannot feel pain is a problem but raising a self aware animal that feels pain and killing it for food is ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

How come destroying a cluster of cells which are fundamentally unaware of their own existence and cannot feel pain is a problem but raising a self aware animal that feels pain and killing it for food is ok?

how do you know they are fundamentally unaware ?

Meat is tasty and filling

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
Life does not begin at conceptiion. Life began a long time ago and it continues.

Conception is special - it is a point when a new unique combination of human generic material is created.

How come destroying a cluster of cells which are fundamentally unaware of their own existence and cannot feel pain is a problem but raising a self aware animal that feels pain and killing it for food is ok?

Because meat tastes good to this cluster of cells right here. And you gotta eat something, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corcaigh

Corcaigh

Posted
Posted
Good God...is there anyone in this thread that I actually want to be on the same side of a debate with? (Aside from the brilliant' date=' handsome, and erudite Jumbo of course).[/quote']

Maybe I can help (or not) ... when my wife and I were trying to start a family, the first three times (at least) my wife was pregnant, the fetus aborted. What's your view on whether she is a serial killer who willed her own body to murder these unborn children which would otherwise have been an adult today according to Zguy, or whether God intervened, reliving his Old Testament behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

I had an abortion because my birth control method failed and I've never regretted it. I don't think about it much, except to get angry when men think that they can tell me what I can do with my body. Thank goodness I wasn't married because I didn't have to consult with anyone about my decision. After my abortion, I tried to get my tubes tied because I didn't want children and no one would do it because of my age (22). When I got pregnant again at 25, again because of birth control failure, I decided to have the child. I had my tubes tied a year after giving birth, doctor was reluctant even though I was then 28 and unmarried and what if my future husband wanted children. I didn't need permission from a husband to get sterilized. Then I decided to not hide my true self any longer nor try to be heterosexual.

I didn't have to have any men involved in the process except for a male doctor telling me that I couldn't be sterilized at age 22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
Life does not begin at conceptiion. Life began a long time ago and it continues.

Conception is special - it is a point when a new unique combination of human generic material is created.

How come destroying a cluster of cells which are fundamentally unaware of their own existence and cannot feel pain is a problem but raising a self aware animal that feels pain and killing it for food is ok?

This thread is already derailed, exploring any of the terrifying aspects of bioethics should probably have its own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Why don't you help him expand his understanding?

Is this a paying gig? :ols:

the cluster of cells clearly communicate with each other and perform some neat tricks

self awareness (as generally defined) is not reached for a yr or two after birth

isn't self awareness or neurons firing a rather odd point to pick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
No Excuses

No Excuses

Posted
Posted
Is this a paying gig? :ols:

the cluster of cells clearly communicate with each other and perform some neat tricks

self awareness (as generally defined) is not reached for a yr or two after birth

isn't self awareness or neurons firing a rather odd point to pick?

Your criteria is no better than his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...