[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Ifreann]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses

I’m not Catholic if that is what you think…

I think you missed the historical reference.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I’m not Catholic if that is what you think…

I think you missed the historical reference.

I’m sorry. I just woke up lol. Can you explain to me what this historical reference is?

[Betoni]

'

It really isn't, the fetus has no capacity to act in any sense much less legal, so it cannot use anything or have any rights. Laws banning abortion don't create new rights for fetuses they limit the rights of the mother. Have you then conceded already that a fetus is capable of having rights?

"Concede"? I was never starting from a position where I would need to "concede" that, so you are arguing against a position that I never held. So you might want to do a hard reset of your view of my position and start again. The second part of the quote you responded to reveals that I'm needing to argue from starting points I don't believe are true, solely due to the pro-life crowd having a set of assumptions, and me needing to place myself in a position to argue against them (I don't consider the fetus to be a person for instance, but since the pro-life crowd bring forward arguments that have that as one of their arguments, I need to suspend that to actually even argue against them, even though I myself do not hold that view):

Given the pro-life crowd very frequently want the fetus to be considered a person, the question of it being a legal entity in this context is very pertinent, hence why we need to speak in terms like this.

[/qute]
So you're intending to show fault in the assumed internal logic of their assumed argument, rather than argue the validity of the initial axioms of their position. Even though you think that said axiom is not valid. In this case you choose to argue about the ethical validity of a non exitend right rather than question if such right can even exist. Why?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm fine with Sun 'doing it wrong', I'm picking up his religious anti-abortion arguments (or in this case, religious hijack) and explaining where they are wrong for the benefit of others.

I'm not making religious arguments. And second, there's nothing wrong with Catholicism.

We've addressed your claim to not make religious arguments before - on this same topic - and it wasn't true that time either.

Now, I get the celibacy-versus-vasectomy thing was a hijack you were encouraging, but your argument on the hijack was religious, too... and were wrong on that, too

I'm not even discussing whether Catholicism is 'wrong' or not, so take that windmill tilting to someone else.


(And if you're going to argue that I am saying Catholicism is wrong because your arguments are the opposite of what Jesus said - your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus).

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm fine with Sun 'doing it wrong', I'm picking up his religious anti-abortion arguments (or in this case, religious hijack) and explaining where they are wrong for the benefit of others.

Did you just assume that I was pro life? Man, can someone prove them wrong because they won’t believe me. Neutraligon you tell em.

I have no idea if you're pro-life or not, it's a label I find completely unhelpful, honestly.

Personally, I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice, because I believe those two things are different questions. I also can't define myself as 'pro-life' because I do believe in self-defense, a death penalty, and the right to assisted suicide.

I was talking specifically about Sun constantly (and apparently, without even their knowledge?) letting religion seep into their arguments - but if I was discussing your positions, I would want to define them specifically, rather than try to pigeonhole them into bad boxes.

[Sundiata]

I'm not making religious arguments. And second, there's nothing wrong with Catholicism.

We've addressed your claim to not make religious arguments before - on this same topic - and it wasn't true that time either.

Now, I get the celibacy-versus-vasectomy thing was a hijack you were encouraging, but your argument on the hijack was religious, too... and were wrong on that, too

I'm not even discussing whether Catholicism is 'wrong' or not, so take that windmill tilting to someone else.


(And if you're going to argue that I am saying Catholicism is wrong because your arguments are the opposite of what Jesus said - your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus).

I've not made a religious argument yet you continue to accuse me of being wrong on the grounds of my religion: Catholicism. You're hijacking this thread by mentioning Jesus, what scripture says, etc.

What Jesus said is not the point of this thread. What Catholicism teaches is not the point of this thread. Stop imposing your views on religion where they just don't need to be.

[Neutraligon]

We've addressed your claim to not make religious arguments before - on this same topic - and it wasn't true that time either.

Now, I get the celibacy-versus-vasectomy thing was a hijack you were encouraging, but your argument on the hijack was religious, too... and were wrong on that, too

I'm not even discussing whether Catholicism is 'wrong' or not, so take that windmill tilting to someone else.


(And if you're going to argue that I am saying Catholicism is wrong because your arguments are the opposite of what Jesus said - your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus).

I've not made a religious argument yet you continue to accuse me of being wrong on the grounds of my religion: Catholicism. You're hijacking this thread by mentioning Jesus, what scripture says, etc.

What Jesus said is not the point of this thread. What Catholicism teaches is not the point of this thread. Stop imposing your views on religion where they just don't need to be.

Why are you pro-life?

[Grave_n_idle]

We've addressed your claim to not make religious arguments before - on this same topic - and it wasn't true that time either.

Now, I get the celibacy-versus-vasectomy thing was a hijack you were encouraging, but your argument on the hijack was religious, too... and were wrong on that, too

I'm not even discussing whether Catholicism is 'wrong' or not, so take that windmill tilting to someone else.


(And if you're going to argue that I am saying Catholicism is wrong because your arguments are the opposite of what Jesus said - your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus).

I've not made a religious argument yet you continue to accuse me of being wrong on the grounds of my religion: Catholicism. You're hijacking this thread by mentioning Jesus, what scripture says, etc.

What Jesus said is not the point of this thread. What Catholicism teaches is not the point of this thread. Stop imposing your views on religion where they just don't need to be.

You don't even KNOW what my views on religion are, because none of my arguments have been based in religion. My arguments on abortion are based on my personal desire to minimize it as much as possible, and to make sure law is applied equally.

You keep bringing up religion - either directly or indirectly. You're constantly talking about moral arguments and bringing up other religion-adjacent arguments (the hijack I was discussing was you talking about how priests being celibate is different to vasectomies), and I keep pulling you up on it, and you keep saying it isn't happening... And then doing the exact same thing again.

I am willing to accept you don't even KNOW your arguments are religious. That's a possibility. In which case it is even more essential I point it out to you. And rather than arguing, your u should pay attention and work to correct it.

[The New California Republic]

We've addressed your claim to not make religious arguments before - on this same topic - and it wasn't true that time either.

Now, I get the celibacy-versus-vasectomy thing was a hijack you were encouraging, but your argument on the hijack was religious, too... and were wrong on that, too

I'm not even discussing whether Catholicism is 'wrong' or not, so take that windmill tilting to someone else.


(And if you're going to argue that I am saying Catholicism is wrong because your arguments are the opposite of what Jesus said - your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus).

I've not made a religious argument yet you continue to accuse me of being wrong on the grounds of my religion: Catholicism. You're hijacking this thread by mentioning Jesus, what scripture says, etc.

What Jesus said is not the point of this thread. What Catholicism teaches is not the point of this thread. Stop imposing your views on religion where they just don't need to be.

If you genuinely think someone is hijacking the thread then just report it. It's incredibly bad form to use an accusation like that as a counterargument to shut down a line of inquiry you don't like, as you are doing here.

[Sundiata]

I've not made a religious argument yet you continue to accuse me of being wrong on the grounds of my religion: Catholicism. You're hijacking this thread by mentioning Jesus, what scripture says, etc.

What Jesus said is not the point of this thread. What Catholicism teaches is not the point of this thread. Stop imposing your views on religion where they just don't need to be.

Why are you pro-life?

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

[Neuer California]

Why are you pro-life?

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

And where does that belief stem from?

[Sundiata]

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

And where does that belief stem from?

Logic. To suggest that life begins at any other point seems arbitrary to me because a Zygote is certainly a human being. Whether or not it feels pain, can survive independently of the mother, that's all irrelevant to the question of its living humanity.

[The Alma Mater]

Why are you pro-life?

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

So?

[Sundiata]

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

So?

So what?

[The Alma Mater]

So?

So what?

Many people believe that, but are not "pro-life".
What is the follow-up reasoning?

[Sundiata]

So what?

Many people believe that, but are not "pro-life".
What is the follow-up reasoning?

Because a zygote is a life and an innocent life no less, to actively kill that life is immoral. Because choosing to kill an innocent human life is certainly immoral.

We certainly should not choose to kill innocent human beings, individually or collectively.

[Neuer California]

Many people believe that, but are not "pro-life".
What is the follow-up reasoning?

Because a zygote is a life and an innocent life no less, to actively kill that life is immoral. Because choosing to kill an innocent human life is certainly immoral.

And what of cases where the zygote fails to implant, or become viable, or ends up implanting in the wrong area (ectopic pregnancy, for example)?

BTW, imo, life begins when the fears can survive outside the mother without extensive medical care beyond what a standard preemee would need.

[Grave_n_idle]

Many people believe that, but are not "pro-life".
What is the follow-up reasoning?

Because a zygote is a life and an innocent life no less, to actively kill that life is immoral. Because choosing to kill an innocent human life is certainly immoral.
.

Immoral?

Your 'morals' are just something you made up.

[Sundiata]

Because a zygote is a life and an innocent life no less, to actively kill that life is immoral. Because choosing to kill an innocent human life is certainly immoral.

And what of cases where the zygote fails to implant, or become viable, or ends up implanting in the wrong area (ectopic pregnancy, for example)?

BTW, imo, life begins when the fears can survive outside the mother without extensive medical care beyond what a standard preemee would need.

In those cases my answer remains unchanged; a zygote is still an innocent human being and to intend and execute its death is immoral whatever the consequence.

[Sundiata]

Because a zygote is a life and an innocent life no less, to actively kill that life is immoral. Because choosing to kill an innocent human life is certainly immoral.
.

Immoral?

Your 'morals' are just something you made up.

Not really, no. No.

[Neuer California]

And what of cases where the zygote fails to implant, or become viable, or ends up implanting in the wrong area (ectopic pregnancy, for example)?

BTW, imo, life begins when the fears can survive outside the mother without extensive medical care beyond what a standard preemee would need.

In those cases my answer remains unchanged; a zygote is still an innocent human being and to intend and execute its death is immoral whatever the consequence.

Even in cases where there is no way the zygote will ever develop into a baby? Ectopic pregnancies routinely end with the zygote/fetus dead or aborted because there's no way they'll become viable and having them continue to "develop" greatly endangers the mother for no benefit to her or the zygote.

[Sundiata]

In those cases my answer remains unchanged; a zygote is still an innocent human being and to intend and execute its death is immoral whatever the consequence.

Even in cases where there is no way the zygote will ever develop into a baby? Ectopic pregnancies routinely end with the zygote/fetus dead or aborted because there's no way they'll become viable and having them continue to "develop" greatly endangers the mother for no benefit to her or the zygote.

Yes: the principle of double effect.

Doing something wrong for the right reason is still wrong.

[Ifreann]

Many people believe that, but are not "pro-life".
What is the follow-up reasoning?

Because a zygote is a life and an innocent life no less, to actively kill that life is immoral. Because choosing to kill an innocent human life is certainly immoral.

We certainly should not choose to kill innocent human beings, individually or collectively.

Seems to me that if the unborn will not willingly leave the body of a pregnant person when they are unwelcome then they cease to be innocent.

[Genivaria]

Immoral?

Your 'morals' are just something you made up.

Not really, no. No.

Yes they are, you are literally trying to ascribe guilt or innocence to what is essentially a bacterium.
Covid is not 'guilty' because it doesn't posses the capacity to make moral judgements, it does harm and must therefore be eradicated.
Try a less stupid argument.

[Sundiata]

Not really, no. No.

Yes they are, you are literally trying to ascribe guilt or innocence to what is essentially a bacterium.
Covid is not 'guilty' because it doesn't posses the capacity to make moral judgements, it does harm and must therefore be eradicated.
Try a less stupid argument.

You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus. COVID doesn't undergo the same developmental stages as a human being. Even if a human being were to unintentionally cause harm or lack the capacity to make moral judgements they don't deserve to be killed.

Try a less stupid argument.