Political Crossfire Forums

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: what about genocide?

What about genocide? A murderer is a murderer no matter how many people he kills.

Quote: are you a lawyer? what a squirrelly answer. I'm asking about your moral views on the subject. Not the moral views of researchers.

I have some legal background :P. My moral views? I have no moral views on the subject. My moral views do not apply to them. The moral views of parents apply to their children, until those children are mature.

Quote: Wow. OK then.

Do you think your parents would let you be used for experimentation by some wicked doctor to test whether the tearing of limbs boosts intelligence? I believe in personal responsibility, in parents being responsible for their children.

If a city-state wants to, they could banish people for child-abuse, if they believe children should be protected from their parents. However, no intervention should ever be made in the family. It is autonomous. Intervention, that is, without the parents consent.

Mr U

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Here Blackmun is clear that the state's interests CAN and in fact DO over ride the individual's interests "to do what they want". He and the other justices decided, and I think incorrectly, that point came at "viability". So the secular arguement is not WHETEHER the state CAN supercede in the interests of the "potential" life over those of the mother, but WHEN ?
The legal right of the state to take life is in the constitution. So as long as due process is done then abortion can be legal. It is the same process that allows a state to enact capital punishment.

So the potential for taking life is in the constitution. The legal issue now is whether to make abortion illegal, because it is at the moment legal. Part of deciding whether or not it should be illegal is the morality of it.

So the moral issue defines the emphasis of the legal solution. Morality is subjective as many on this forum love to shout, but there is a morality of society as well. It is the general morals the majority of us agree with. Our morality is influenced by the scientific facts.

A fetus is not a 'person' as in it is not a reasoning, empathic, communicating being until proven that it is. Someone who has severe brain damage is still a 'person' until proven otherwise. The points at which we determine something a 'person' is not arbitrary, but they are maybe not entirely reasoned. That is because part of the decision is emotional.

Why not kill newborns as obviously they are not 'persons' by the definition above? It is because we have attributed to them 'personhood' status, for not entirely rational reasons. I call this the 'looks like a chicken, smells like a chicken and feels like a chicken, so it is a chicken' hypothesis. Your genes and instincts scream to you that a newborn is a precious thing.

We can also see that a late term fetus, that may be viable can also be a good bet to be considered for 'personhood' status. However an early term fetus is only potential, and unwanted potential is barely anything. However the mother is a 'person' imbued with full autonomy. So I think she should be allowed to make the decision on whether the potential could be fulfilled.

Potential is just potential, every one of my sperm have potential is anyone advocating their rights? No, because potential is nothing until acted upon or allowed to happen.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Here Blackmun is clear that the state's interests CAN and in fact DO over ride the individual's interests "to do what they want". He and the other justices decided, and I think incorrectly, that point came at "viability". So the secular arguement is not WHETEHER the state CAN supercede in the interests of the "potential" life over those of the mother, but WHEN ?
The legal right of the state to take life is in the constitution. So as long as due process is done then abortion can be legal. It is the same process that allows a state to enact capital punishment. The only problem with this sentence is that the state is NOT taking the life, the mother and the medical team take the life privately. But I am not arguing that point and neither is Blackmun.

Selfish_Meme wrote: So the potential for taking life is in the constitution. The legal issue now is whether to make abortion illegal, because it is at the moment legal. Part of deciding whether or not it should be illegal is the morality of it.

So the moral issue defines the emphasis of the legal solution. Morality is subjective as many on this forum love to shout, but there is a morality of society as well. It is the general morals the majority of us agree with. Our morality is influenced by the scientific facts.

A fetus is not a 'person' as in it is not a reasoning, empathic, communicating being until proven that it is. Someone who has severe brain damage is still a 'person' until proven otherwise. The points at which we determine something a 'person' is not arbitrary, but they are maybe not entirely reasoned. That is because part of the decision is emotional.

Let me make it clear, while I AM in favor of over turning Roe v Wade I am not in favor of criminalizing abortion. And while I personally would like to see abortion ended I do not see that as a realistic option in the near future.

I would actually fall into the majority of opinion in two categories. According to poll after poll for years and years (I will repost them for the nth time if you make me.) 65% or so of Americans would like to see abortions restricted more than they are right now. And a majority usually 55% believe life begins at conception.

However a majority believe that Roe V. Wade should not be overturned, go figure. My theory on how these three things can be is that most people think that overtuning of Roe makes abortion illegal which of course is not true.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Why not kill newborns as obviously they are not 'persons' by the definition above? It is because we have attributed to them 'personhood' status, for not entirely rational reasons. I call this the 'looks like a chicken, smells like a chicken and feels like a chicken, so it is a chicken' hypothesis. Your genes and instincts scream to you that a newborn is a precious thing.

We can also see that a late term fetus, that may be viable can also be a good bet to be considered for 'personhood' status. However an early term fetus is only potential, and unwanted potential is barely anything. However the mother is a 'person' imbued with full autonomy. So I think she should be allowed to make the decision on whether the potential could be fulfilled.

Potential is just potential, every one of my sperm have potential is anyone advocating their rights? No, because potential is nothing until acted upon or allowed to happen.

Firstly I used Blackmun's term not mine, I do not agree and science and I believe you are on my side that a fetus is not potential life but a human life (in your case you also require a human being to be a "person").

Again I simply can not accept that a human life can be terminated because you and people like you have created an arbitrary construct to protect a political position which has NO basis in medicine.