The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

Every mother has absolute power of life and death over her unborn…or have you forgotten that suicide exists?

As I pointed out before, this is another point of failure in your argument. The life of the unborn child, although mostly dependent on the mother, is still separate, at after a certain point can continue on without the mother. At a late enough stage in pregnancy, even if the mother commits suicide, or is killed, assuming someone is close by to cut the child out, the child can survive.

 

[jamil]

I think I'm getting more and more confused here.

Before I can try to address your counterpoints, I think I need to step back and ask exactly what your position is regarding laws based on the belief of life an conception. At first I thought you were saying that laws should only ever be based on what can be logically/rationally derived without making any reference to religion or religious concepts. But that now seems at odds with your statements that "...not every logically derived thing is good." and "...it's unclear that we can supplant that purpose [of religion] with something else and not destroy ourselves."

Based on those two quotes of yours, doesn't it then logically follow that sometimes society would need laws that are based on religious thinking, and not on secular rationality alone? I'm not even sure I would make such a claim, though...

No. I think when it comes to social issues, laws should reflect society within Overton’s windows. If you want to convince society to ban abortion outright, you need to change harts and minds. I don’t think your arguments for “at conception” will be fruitful.

But, that is separate from my personal viewpoint. I want responsibility to prevail. I’m not willing to force people who disagree. I don’t see this as an absolute moral issue, and you’ve not so far made the case that it is.

 

[jamil]

Has PaulF been so soon forgotten?

Oh yeah. I did forget him. But Mr Jarrell was most memorable.

 

[jamil]

There are other lines of thought than these. I argue that any rights to a fetus’ life belong entirely to its mother.

As a guest in another person’s body we have no right to take anything the other person is unwilling to give.

Our right to life does not give us the right to occupy and consume another person’s body unless that other person consents to it, and the other person is free to remove consent at any time for any reason.

This absolutely applies to gestation and live birth. A mother cannot guarantee -nor does she owe- her unborn a healthy gestation or a live birth…she alone chooses to sacrifice herself to do so…and only she can decide if the potential risks are worth the potential rewards.

Abortion is equal to an intentional miscarriage, and…just like how an unintended miscarriage is not manslaughter an intentional miscarriage is not murder.

I think the guest thing doesn’t work. At the most simple level the “guest” was invited by the mother’s actions.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Oh yeah. I did forget him. But Mr Jarrell was most memorable.

I always feel like I’m missing the good part of the story.

Was there some epic Religious Faithful vs The Gays slap fight deep in Ingo’s storied good ol’ days I missed out on?

Was mister Jarrell one of the rogue mods like cut was?

Edit: please don’t tell me to use INGO‘s search function to find the epic threads…I can’t even find the treads I just posted in with that thing.

 

[jamil]

I always feel like I’m missing the good part of the story.

Was there some epic Religious Faithful vs The Gays slap fight deep in Ingo’s storied good ol’ days I missed out on?

Was mister Jarrell one of the rogue mods like cut was?

Edit: please don’t tell me to use INGO‘s search function to find the epic threads…I can’t even find the treads I just posted in with that thing.

Kut wasn’t a mod. He was just a troll in a bad sense. PaulF was a mod. Mr Jarrell was just someone who couldn’t not mock Christians. He was/is a rabid Atheist. Could not help himself which was manifest by his constant ignoring warnings. And a pretty far out there big L Libertarian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Just a different level of ClownWorld™.

 

[Dean C.]

EVERY abortion results in an innocent person 'sent to death row'. By your avowed standard, should not ALL abortion be abolished?

You don’t understand, I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty , just illustrating the logically inconsistent position since a lot of pro-life people also seem to be very pro-death penalty. I don’t have a problem with either but at least keep whatever your morals are straight.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

at least keep whatever your morals are straight.

They're pretty straight.

Guilty and convicted of a crime = death penalty = .

Innocent, having never committed a crime and never even given the opportunity to commit a crime = death penalty =

 

[Twangbanger]

I always feel like I’m missing the good part of the story.

Was there some epic Religious Faithful vs The Gays slap fight deep in Ingo’s storied good ol’ days I missed out on?

Was mister Jarrell one of the rogue mods like cut was?

Edit: please don’t tell me to use INGO‘s search function to find the epic threads…I can’t even find the treads I just posted in with that thing.

Yeah, you missed out on good timez. Mr. Jarrell was a "civilian" non-mod member who was a, um, shall we say "b.tchy" antagonist to religious members, participant in Pride rallies, and a "Divest the National Parks to the Private Sector" libertarian. Think I got all the facets in there. A complex individual, to be sure.

Kut was a race-troll who purported to be African American, also not a mod. He was massively skillful at trolling white conservatives here, by insinuating they were racist. The inmates here could. not. resist, and would spend pages and pages and pages of discourse (which he did not deserve) trying to prove him wrong. Which only made them look more guilty, to hilarious effect. For some reason, he was the chunky orange tom-cat that the Dawgs here just could not resist chasing, endlessly and enthusiastically. It was like watching a group of dogs at the base of a tree barking at a squirrel. (It was hard to figure out).

Jamil was actually concise, at times, before Kut showed up...

Paul F. was not as flamboyant as the other two, but memorable in his own right. He was an atheist mod and apparently a diversity-quota left-over from the original site owner, who seemed determined to make sure his mod staff "looked like America." It somewhat resembled a gun-web version of the Clinton Cabinet. Back in those days, believe it or not, religion was actually a banned topic...it said so right in the rules. Paul worked like an alley-oop team with Mr. Jarrell to get religious people banned for violating the religious discussion rule. Their favorite game was, Jarrell would post up some thread that made Christians look ridiculous, like the "Westboro Baptist Church" goons messing up service members' funerals, and Paul would look the other way while the anti-religious dog-pile ensued. It was all against the rules, of course, but Paul would let it run so long as the Christians were getting the short end of the stick. As soon as an intelligent religious person would show up and start making some good points, getting the better part of the argument, Paul F. would step in and shut the thread down for being against the rules...after he had already let it run for 6 pages. And sometimes banning someone in the process. He had the distinction of being the first Mod to get "impeached" in modern times, and the only one I know of to make the fall from "Mod" to "Shooter." It was sort of a watershed event, eventually resulting in the Religion Ban being reconsidered, and the "Civilized All Things Christianity Thread" was a direct, "Berlin Wall Falls" sort of reaction to the rule being dropped.

Good times indeed. I'm taking some pity on you by explaining this, since I got here too late to understand the Que / JetGirl / Cathy in Blue thing, and nobody would explain it to me.

 

[BugI02]

Every mother has absolute power of life and death over her unborn…or have you forgotten that suicide exists?

Suicide = self murder, so in that case she would also be murdering her unborn child, which is what we have been saying all along

Abortion just means she only wants to murder the child not herself

 

[jamil]

You don’t understand, I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty , just illustrating the logically inconsistent position since a lot of pro-life people also seem to be very pro-death penalty. I don’t have a problem with either but at least keep whatever your morals are straight.

There’s no moral dilemma for people who are anti-abortion and also pro death penalty.

 

[jamil]

Jamil was actually concise, at times, before Kut showed up...

At first I gave Kut benefit of the doubt. Then he proved himself to be a race trolI. I judged that one wrong.

 

[JTScribe]

At first I gave Kut benefit of the doubt. Then he proved himself to be a race trolI. I judged that one wrong.

He seemed an okay dude at times. I wonder if he had some life issues that made him sour.

 

[jamil]

He seemed an okay dude at times. I wonder if he had some life issues that made him sour.

I think that was just an act.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I think that was just an act.

which part?

 

[Twangbanger]

At first I gave Kut benefit of the doubt. Then he proved himself to be a race trolI. I judged that one wrong.

After the "INGO = Storm Front Lite" thing, I thought he had to be banging somebody on staff, to still be here...

 

[jamil]

After the "INGO = Storm Front Lite" thing, I thought he had to be banging somebody on staff, to still be here...

Someone posted a a link to a conversation about INGO on another forum he frequented. He pretty much laid it out. The storm front comments made his purpose pretty clear. But that made it absolutely transparent.

 

[JettaKnight]

He seemed an okay dude at times. I wonder if he had some life issues that made him sour.

I got the same sense. He grew up black in the Deep South - something I really know nothing of.

 

[KLB]

I don’t understand the question.

A child cannot consent to anything, not even to accepting a peanut-butter sandwich on its own. A parent must assess the risk and act on behalf of the child…hopefully in that child’s best interests, but that’s hardly a given in this world.

Well, except to having a sex change in some states.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No. I think when it comes to social issues, laws should reflect society within Overton’s windows. If you want to convince society to ban abortion outright, you need to change harts and minds. I don’t think your arguments for “at conception” will be fruitful.

But, that is separate from my personal viewpoint. I want responsibility to prevail. I’m not willing to force people who disagree. I don’t see this as an absolute moral issue, and you’ve not so far made the case that it is.

Ultimately, the trouble is that you haven't just rejected the arguments for "at conception", you have rejected the necessary premise to make such arguments, which is the need for objective morality.

Yes, you pay lip service to the idea of objectivity, and to your credit you at least try to look for moral principles that are rooted outside of yourself, and that is an important first step. But you leave it at that, and think that because you try to derive morals from an overall view of human society/history, instead of from your own feelings, that alone makes your morality objective. But your principles are still subjective, as they are subject to whatever winds of change are blowing in the current time and place in which you live.

Now, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of merely bowing to the latest fad. I can see that you don't fully give yourself over to the whims of the current generation, which is why you can recognize and reject the insanity that is the full-blown "Clownworld"/"wokeism" of our times. But your basic approach of averaging out the morals of different societies across history will always leave you skewed towards whichever extreme is being pushed in the time period you happen to live in.

Ultimately it's a very, very fundamental disagreement that we have over the nature of truth itself. For me, morality must not be approached differently than any other truth we seek to know. When we try to understand the laws of nature, or any principles by which our world operates, we have to start out by realizing that truth never changes. What is fact does not depend in any way on the sensibilities of our current generation, or any other generation. Logic, reason, rationality: for me these three words all mean the same, essential thing, and they point to the principle that I believe must be adhered to above and beyond anything else. You keep trying to pass it off as a religious thing, but the real difference between us is that you have rejected logical consistency as the ultimate test of morality, as you stated explicitly above when you said that what is most logical is not always most good. On the other hand, for me, reason and logic (which again, mean the same thing in my mind) is the most fundamental principle, even more basic, and in fact necessary for, religious principles, or moral ones.

To put it in less abstract terms: I am able to look at human history and realize that there have been time periods when you couldn't remain within your current society's Overton window without agreeing to some very messed-up things. The only reason such societies are able to change for the better is because some people start to advocate for views that their current generation rejects. And the only way a person can do that, is if they have moral principles that are rooted outside of the mores and sensibilities of society. Human nature has never fundamentally changed in recorded history, thus a true morality should not either.

We are currently in the midst of a seismic shift in society's values, which began a few generations ago with the sexual revolution (well, of course it sort of began before that, but that's when it really took off) and doesn't show any signs of slowing down. I suspect that if you were able to live for a couple hundred years and watch as society's Overton window careens further and further off the path of reason, that you would eventually be forced to recognize the inadequacy of your current system of deriving moral principles, and realize that it can never be used as a basis for a stable society.