I thought Republicans...

[Sbee]

27% of the study, 5x the number of homicide victims is a small sample.got it.

Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for women from 15-24, about 15% of all deaths, trailing accidental injuries. there is a delta of 12% for women who have abortions, the abortion may have some impact, as it was mentioned in the study (though not quantified). It's naive to discount other factors though, including lack of emotional support, having a loving partner or a stable home life that would welcome a child. You can't discount these and say it's all due to the fact that they had an abortion. I understand that you view it as slaughter, though the laws disagree with you. Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean that every woman who kills themselves after an abortion is due to the procedure. I still don't understand your need to impose your subjective (legally incorrect) vision on when human life begins on others.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I understand that you view it as slaughter, though the laws disagree with you. I still don't understand your need to impose your subjective (legally incorrect) vision on when human life begins on others.

Your reliance on the law to validate your position seems weird to me.

You agree with all laws or is there something special about this law that carries so much weight with you? How do you reconcile states or nations with different laws? If you lived in a nation or in a time where abortion was banned, would you feel that is right because it's the law?

 

[Spartanmack]

Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for women from 15-24, about 15% of all deaths, trailing accidental injuries. there is a delta of 12% for women who have abortions, the abortion may have some impact, as it was mentioned in the study (though not quantified). It's naive to discount other factors though, including lack of emotional support, having a loving partner or a stable home life that would welcome a child. You can't discount these and say it's all due to the fact that they had an abortion. I understand that you view it as slaughter, though the laws disagree with you. Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean that every woman who kills themselves after an abortion is due to the procedure. I still don't understand your need to impose your subjective (legally incorrect) vision on when human life begins on others.

My opinion is based on science, not feelings or arbitrary statistics like the ones that mislead you to believe there is institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system. Don't come on here and complain about laws in one argument and then try to use the law to shut down counter arguments you don't agree with - I find that especially tone deaf and ignorant when you're doing it in separate arguments simultaneously.

 

[Sbee]

My opinion is based on science, not feelings or arbitrary statistics like the ones that mislead you to believe there is institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system. Don't come on here and complain about laws in one argument and then try to use the law to shut down counter arguments you don't agree with - I find that especially tone deaf and ignorant when you're doing it in separate arguments simultaneously.

This coming from the person who uses a supreme court decision as evidence to support your position on voter ID but then on Roe V Wade the court couldn't be more wrong? Like I said earlier, the courts decisions are valid only when they support your arguments.

Science? When an embryo is a person is a question that can't be conclusively answered by science. You can say that a new cell is created when sperm and egg are joined but scientist can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins. Theologians, lawyers, judges, and philosophers all have their own definition of personhood, it's ambiguous. You're the one pushing your definition on others.

 

[Sbee]

Your reliance on the law to validate your position seems weird to me.

You agree with all laws or is there something special about this law that carries so much weight with you? How do you reconcile states or nations with different laws? If you lived in a nation or in a time where abortion was banned, would you feel that is right because it's the law?

the use of law in my argument just shows that we can't conclude one way or another on personhood, the courts say that the rights of personhood are not applied until a fetus is viable outside of the womb. It's not definitive in any way, legal or otherwise, that personhood/rights are afforded to a fertilized embryo.

 

[Spartanmack]

This coming from the person who uses a supreme court decision as evidence to support your position on voter ID but then on Roe V Wade the court couldn't be more wrong? Like I said earlier, the courts decisions are valid only when they support your arguments.

Science? When an embryo is a person is a question that can't be conclusively answered by science. You can say that a new cell is created when sperm and egg are joined but scientist can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins. Theologians, lawyers, judges, and philosophers all have their own definition of personhood, it's ambiguous. You're the one pushing your definition on others.

The supreme court gets things wrong all the time, but it's tough to make the argument that they got it wrong in the voter ID law given that there was a 6-3 vote where 2 liberal justices sided with the majority. One of those liberal justices wrote the opinion.

I said my opinion on when life begins was based on science whereas your opinion that there is racial injustice in drug arrests isn't based on solid evidence - what's wrong with that? And I disagree that it's not conclusive. a fertilized egg has a unique and uniquely human DNA at conception - it never develops into a frog or a rose bush or anything that isn't human. And even if that's not enough to say it's human, certainly by the time a woman even knows she is pregnant, the baby is clearly human. Those are facts. It's not enough to say, "well I don't agree, therefore it's not human and you can't force your beliefs on me or other people" which is essentially what you're saying.

 

[Sbee]

The supreme court gets things wrong all the time, but it's tough to make the argument that they got it wrong in the voter ID law given that there was a 6-3 vote where 2 liberal justices sided with the majority. One of those liberal justices wrote the opinion.

I said my opinion on when life begins was based on science whereas your opinion that there is racial injustice in drug arrests isn't based on solid evidence - what's wrong with that? And I disagree that it's not conclusive. a fertilized egg has a unique and uniquely human DNA at conception - it never develops into a frog or a rose bush or anything that isn't human. And even if that's not enough to say it's human, certainly by the time a woman even knows she is pregnant, the baby is clearly human. Those are facts. It's not enough to say, "well I don't agree, therefore it's not human and you can't force your beliefs on me or other people" which is essentially what you're saying.

A fertilized egg has cells that divide and its own unique DNA, but that doesn't make it a person. There's a difference between human cells and a person, that's entirely debatable and therefore up to the individual.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I wish I could peek into a parallel universe where human biology is totally different and people are born through some process not involving 9 months of being carried; like 9 months sitting in an incubator on a shelf in your house. It would be nice to consider the rights of the mother and baby completely separately before you try to create laws addressing where they conflict.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that's entirely debatable and therefore up to the individual.

This attitude is a cancer on modern politics, broadly speaking. The truth, whatever it may be, isn't impacted by your ability to debate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

It's just a wrong way to frame a debate.

 

[Sbee]

This attitude is a cancer on modern politics, broadly speaking. The truth, whatever it may be, isn't impacted by your ability to debate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

It's just a wrong way to frame a debate.

I agree with the segment you posted, but it completely doesn't apply here. I am talking about personhood, something that is far from subjective. How many people are shot isn't subjective, that's measurable.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I agree with the segment you posted, but it completely doesn't apply here. I am talking about personhood, something that is far from subjective. How many people are shot isn't subjective, that's measurable.

Unproven or unmeasurable is different from subjective.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That difference is pretty central to my point.

 

[Sbee]

Unproven or unmeasurable is different from subjective.

I understand but the parallel you're trying to draw is a reach. Personhood is ambiguous, murder is less so.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I understand but the parallel you're trying to draw is a reach. Personhood is ambiguous, murder is less so.

No. When you use words like ambiguous and subjective, it means there is no actual truth to the issue, just various interpretations. It's very different from something being unknown or unproven. In most cases the difference isn't that big a deal, but in this case, we're talking about personhood and the right to live. All of society may not agree on when that point is, but the idea that there is no truth and that it is a subjective matter put you in a precarious position regarding the role of morality in our laws and lives. If there is no absolute truth on something as important as the right of a person to live, how can there be objective morality? If you don't believe in objective morality, then why do you care?

On the other hand, if you acknowledge that there is a truth, that at some point there is a human being endowed with certain unalienable rights, but it is not universally agreed upon when that person exists, then a different approach is taken in dealing with it. We make decisions in the face of incomplete information all the time. In the case of risk, we make an effort to evaluate both the probability of failure and the impact of failure. The probability of a fetus being human is the thing we are having a difficult time evaluating, but impact of getting it wrong, is very high.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That's not to imply that you have to believe in objective morality to care about laws. Plenty of people don't believe in objective morality. But at that point, if it's not about right or wrong, then I think it's subjective. It's an effort to create a world that we like, to whatever degree we can agree on that.

 

[byco42]

We will ever fail at playing God. As if "personhood" is somehow even remotely connected to the right to live. It isn't. To mitigate when that magical moment transpires is the height of cowardice and evasion. The moment of conception begins an eternal life that cannot be truncated in the womb for any reason whatsoever. Abortionists are killing God's children; not mine and not yours: God's.

 

[Gulo Blue]

We will ever fail at playing God. As if "personhood" is somehow even remotely connected to the right to live. It isn't. To mitigate when that magical moment transpires is the height of cowardice and evasion. The moment of conception begins an eternal life that cannot be truncated in the womb for any reason whatsoever. Abortionists are killing God's children; not mine and not yours: God's.

I think you have to use the word personhood (or something like it) if you want to have a conversation with people that do not believe in souls.

 

[byco42]

I think you have to use the word personhood (or something like it) if you want to have a conversation with people that do not believe in souls.

I cannot account for their a) ignorance or b) obstinance or c) malevolence. It's the soul who makes the person a person at all. They are indistinguishable. Which is why a fertilized egg is a person: it already has a soul.

 

[Michchamp]

would you Jesus freaks stop skewing this debate?

abortion does not equal murder. any sane, non-imaginary-man-in-the-sky can see the difference here.

no one who defends a woman's right to make her own decision with regard to child bearing is advocating for abortions any more than you hypocrites will actually lift a finger in your own lives to help out any poor single mothers that do decide to keep their kids. and in fact, by voting to "reform" welfare, cut food stamps, etc you're actively fucking over those kids once they are born.

you guys for framing a woman's right to abortion as murder need to check your privilege and moral superiority.

and while I've read plenty of stories of jesus-freak-assholes harassing poor women in the US walking to/from abortion clinics, I've never read a single story of that happening to the daughter of some rich family heading down to Mexico for an abortion pre-Roe v Wade or any legislative attention being directed at that. I guess you don't want to pick a fight with people who WILL punch back... "baby killer" or not.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no one who defends a woman's right to make her own decision with regard to child bearing is advocating for abortions any more than you hypocrites will actually lift a finger in your own lives to help out any poor single mothers that do decide to keep their kids. and in fact, by voting to "reform" welfare, cut food stamps, etc you're actively fucking over those kids once they are born.

I do think the whole pro-life movement should work more to change culture rather than laws, and the best, first thing to do is to support poor single mothers. I know programs exist. You can go HERE, punch in your zipcode, and see what's available.

Also, the fact that one or the other (or both) side(s) of an issue might be supported largely by hypocrites has nothing to do with which side is right or to what degree.